BT  201  . B85  1903 
Bushnell,  Horace,  1802-1876. 
God  in  Christ 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/godinchristthreeOObush_O 


GOD  IN  CHRIST 


THREE  DISCOURSES  DELIVERED 
AT  NEW  HAVEN,  CAMBRIDGE 
AND  ANDOVER 

WITH  A  PRELIMINARY  DISSERTATION  ON 


LANGUAGE 


BY 


HORACE  BUSHNELL 


Centenary  lEDition 


NEW  YORK 

CHARLES  SCRIBNER’S  SONS 

1903 


Copyright,  1876,  by 
MARY  A.  BUSHNELL 


CONTENTS. 


I.  PRELIMINARY  DISSERTATION. 

PAGI 

Language  as  related  to  thought  and  spirit.  Origin 
of  Language.  Formation  of  Grammar.  Views  of  others. 
Two  departments  in  language.  Applications  of  the  doc¬ 
trine.  Reason  of  types  or  figures.  Words  of  thought 
indeterminate.  A  false  element  in  words  of  thought. 
Etymologies  to  be  studied.  Opposing  words  necessary. 
The  logical  method  deceitful.  Interpretation.  Language 
insufficient  for  the  uses  of  dogma.  Creeds  and  confessions. 
How  a  writer  becomes  intelligible.  Facilities  of  perverse 
criticism.  Effects  of  a  right  view  of  language.  Intro¬ 
ductory .  9-117 


II.  DISCOURSE  AT  NEW  HAVEN. 

The  Divinity  of  Christ.  Orthodox  views  of  Christ 
and  the  Trinity.  Trinity  involved  in  the  process  of 
Revelation.  God  Absolute.  Incidents  of  the  revealing 
process.  The  Logos  or  Word  of  God.  Incarnation. 
Trinity.  Conclusion . 119-181 

III.  DISCOURSE  AT  CAMBRIDGE. 

The  Atonement.  Doctrine  stated  from  the  scriptures. 
The  Protestant  views  stated  and  discussed.  Subjective 


CONTENTS 


PAQ1 

doctrine.  Christ  a  perfect  character.  Christ  as  the  Word 
of  God.  Christ  dissolves  the  law  of  social  evil.  Christ 
brings  light,  opens  eternity,  assists  our  struggles.  Justi¬ 
fication  wanted.  Assured  to  us  in  Christ.  Prepared  in 
us.  How  prepared.  The  double  administration  of  law 
and  grace.  Sin  finally  vanquished  by  the  submission  of 
Jesus.  The  incarnation  viewed  in  its  objects.  Subjective 
view  concluded.  Objective  view  and  its  grounds.  Judaism 
externally  objective.  Christianity  internally.  Religion  as 
in  art.  The  subjective  view  translated  into  the  objective, 
becomes  a  vicarious  religion.  The  objective  view  instituted 
by  God.  Christianity  incomplete  without  the  Altar  Form. 
Comprehensiveness  of  the  doctrine.  How  to  be  preached. 
Conclusion  .  183-275 


IV.  DISCOURSE  AT  ANDOVER. 

Dogma  and  Spirit  ;  or  the  true  reviving  of  Relig/on. 
Christianity  displaces  the  Pharisaic  dogma.  Enters  the 
world  as  spirit  and  life.  Lapses  next  into  dogma.  Con¬ 
sequent  discord  and  corruption.  The  Reformation  a  par¬ 
tial  remedy.  The  reviving  of  revivals  insufficient.  Dogma 
and  spirit  distinguished.  Province  and  uses  of  Christian 
theology.  Causes  of  the  lapse  into  dogma.  Resulting 
benefits  of  the  same.  Theological  capacities  of  dogma. 
The  head  and  the  heart.  The  Christian  ministry.  Plat¬ 
forms  and  Articles.  Piety  itself  limited  by  dogma.  The 
Holy  Spirit  as  the  Sp'.rit  of  Christ.  Conclusion  .  .  .  277-356 


PRELIMINARY  DISSERTATION 


ON  THE  NATURE  OF 


LANGUAGE, 


AS  RELATED  TO 


THOUGHT  AND  SPIRIT. 


PRELIMINARY  DISSERTATION. 


When  views  of  religious  truth  are  advanced,  which 
either  really  or  apparently  differ  from  such  as  are  com¬ 
monly  accepted,  the  difference  will  often  be  referable  tc 
causes  that  lie  back  of  the  arguments  by  which  they  are 
maintained — some  peculiarity  of  temperament,  some 
struggle  of  personal  history,  unknown  to  the  public,  the 
assumption  or  settlement  of  some  supposed  law  or  prin¬ 
ciple  of  judgment,  which  affects,  of  course,  all  subordinate 
decisions. 

Thus,  if  Hume  or  Blanco  White  had  come,  at  last,  into 
a  settled  belief  in  what  is  commonly  called  orthodox 
or  evangelical  truth,  any  man,  who  understands  at  all  the 
philosophy  of  opinions,  will  see  that  he  would  have  held 
all  his  points  or  articles  of  belief  under  forms  and  rela¬ 
tions  that  had  some  reference,  more  or  less  palpable,  tc 
his  own  spiritual  history,  and  the  struggles  through  which 
he  had  passed.  It  must  be  so  ;  it  lies  not  in  his  choice  to 
have  it  otherwise.  This,  too,  most  likely  is,  in  the  esti¬ 
mation  of  Providence,  the  real  value  of  the  man ;  that 
for  which  he  exists,  and  for  which  his  mental  struggles 
have  been  appointed — which,  if  it  were  known,  ought 


i<? 


PRELIMINARY 


surely  to  secure  him  a  degree  of  patience,  or  even  a 
respectful  hearing.  But,  meantime,  until  the  internal 
relation  between  his  spiritual  history  and  his  opinions  is 
known,  he  is  very  nearly  certain  to  he  a  suspicious  char¬ 
acter.  He  may  seem,  indeed,  to  be  scarcely  true  or  earnest 
in  his  professed  belief,  because  of  the  peculiar  type  and 
form  observed  in  his  opinions.  It  may  even  be  suspected 
''hat  in  assenting  to  standards,  he  is  only  willing  to  find 
some  shelter  of  impunity  for  his  aberrations.  Perhaps 
he  will  also  be  observed,  since  consciously  he  was  not  a 
devil  himself  in  the  painful  struggles  of  unbelief  or  misbe¬ 
lief  through  which  he  has  passed,  to  have  a  certain  warm 
and  even  fraternal  interest  in  persons  or  classes  of  men 
similarly  exercised ;  endeavoring,  possibly,  to  accommo¬ 
date  himself  to  their  point  of  view :  and  this  will  be  to 
many,  a  sign  yet  more  suspicious.  Suspicious,  not  because 
of  any  malignant  purpose  in  them,  but  simply  because 
they  have  no  such  elements  in  their  own  personal  expe¬ 
rience  as  will  enable  them  to  understand  or  conceive 
the  man.  It  is  only  to  be  hoped  that  possibly  they  may 
learn  enough  of  him  at  last,  by  their  friction  against  him 
and  his  opinions,  to  pacify  their  suspicions,  and  rectify 
their  uncharitable  judgments. 

In  offering  these  suggestions,  it  is  not  my  design  to  lay 
open  to  the  public,  even  by  implication,  facts  of  per¬ 
sonal  history,  I  have,  doubtless,  had  my  own  course  of 
mental  and  spiritual  struggle,  as  other  men  have  theirs. 
I  do  not  say  that  the  opinions  to  be  advanced  in  this 
volume,  on  important  theological  subjects,  are  either  to 
be  received,  or  to  be  endured,  or  even  to  be  forgiven.  I 
only  say,  that  to  me ,  they  are  true — truths  of  the  pro 


DISSERTATION. 


11 


foundest  moment,  such  as  I  must  violate  my  own  well 
being,  and  my  spiritual  integrity  before  God,  not  to  em¬ 
brace,  to  profess,  and,  with  what  ability  I  have,  to  maintain 
by  appropriate  arguments.  At  the  same  time,  if  the  pub¬ 
lic  will  believe  it,  there  really  does  not  seem  to  me  to  be 
anything  so  peculiar  in  these  views,  that  any  one  need 
be  alarmed  or  stumbled  by  them.  I  seem  to  myself  to 
assert  nothing  which  is  not  substantial  orthodoxy, — that 
which  contains  the  real  moment  of  all  our  orthodox 
formulas  unabridged.  Indeed,  I  cannot  see  that  there  is 
really  more  of  diversity  between  the  views  here  advanced 
and  those  commonly  accepted,  than  there  is  between 
Paul  and  John,  or  Paul  and  James.  And  as  it  was  right 
that  each  of  these  sacred  writers  should  present  his  truth 
in  the  forms  of  his  own  life  and  experience,  and  so  as  to 
accord  with  the  type  of  his  own  thinking  habit,  so  I  only 
seem  to  have  asserted  the  great  Christian  truths  held  by 
our  churches,  in  forms  truest  to  me,  as  they  are  likely  to 
be  to  all,  who  have  been  exercised  by  similar  difficulties. 

There  is,  however,  apart  from  all  such  experimental 
difficulties,  of  which  it  does  not  become  me  to  speak,  a 
single  subject,  in  regard  to  which  I  was  long  ago  led,  in 
the  way  of  self-extrication,  to  take  up  views  somewhat 
different  from  those  which  seem  more  generally  to  pre¬ 
vail  ;  and  as  I  have  been  drawn,  partly  in  this  manner, 
into  what  may  seem  peculiar  in  the  doctrines  and  argu¬ 
mentations  of  the  discourses  that  follow,  I  deem  it  my 
duty  to  conduct  my  reader,  if  possible,  into  the  views  I 
hold  of  that  subject,  that  I  may  assist  him  thus  to  under¬ 
stand  my  position  more  fully.  The  subject  of  which  ] 
speak,  is  language  ;  a  very  different  instrument,  certainly 


12 


PRELIMINARY. 


from  what  most  men  think  it  to  be,  and  one,  which  if 
they  understood  more  exactly,  they  would  use  more 
wisely.  In  the  misuse  or  abuse  of  this  instrument,  a 
great  part  of  our  religious  difficulties  have  their  spring. 
We  have  misconceived,  as  it  seems  to  me,  both  its 
nature  and  its  capacities,  and  our  moral  reasonings  are, 
to  just  the  same  extent,  infected  with  error.  Indeed,  it 
is  such  an  instrument,  that  I  see  not  how  any  one,  who 
rightly  conceives  its  nature,  can  hope  any  longer  to  pro¬ 
duce  in  it  a  real  and  proper  system  of  dogmatic  truth. 
He  will  doubt  the  capacity  of  language  to  serve  any  such 
purpose.  He  will  also  suspect  that  our  logical  or  deduc¬ 
tive  processes  under  it,  are  more  likely,  in  general,  to  be 
false  than  true.  And  yet,  in  the  matter  of  Christian  doc¬ 
trine,  or  Christian  theology,  we  are  found  commit¬ 
ting  ourselves  most  unsuspectingly  to  language  and  logic, 
as  if  the  instrument  were  sufficient,  and  the  method 
infallible. 


1  do  not  propose,  in  the  dissertation  that  follows,  to 
</  undertake  a  full  investigation  of  language.  I  freely 
acknowledge  my  incompetence  to  any  such  undertaking. 
What  I  design  is,  principally,  to  speak  of  language  as 
regards  its  significancy,  or  the  power  and  capacity  of  its 
words,  taken  as  vehicles  of  thought  and  of  spiritual 
truth.  What  I  may  offer  concerning  other  topics 
involved  in  the  general  subject,  such  as  the  origin  of  lan 
guage  ;  the  phonology  of  words,  or  the  reason  why  certain 
things  are  named  by  certain  sounds,  and  not  by  others  ; 
letters  and  the  written  forms  of  words  ;  laws  of  grammar  ; 


LANGUAGE. 


13 


questions  of  ethnology,  and  the  like ;  will  be  advanced  in 
a  purely  incidental  way,  and  with  no  other  design  than 
to  make  my  theory  of  the  significance  of  words  more 
intelligible  and  clear  I  cannot  promise  that  I  shall  fall 
into  no  mistakes  which  the  learned  philologists  and  gram¬ 
marians  will  detect,  though  I  have  little  fear  that  they 
will  discover  any  important  error  in  what  I  advance,  in 
regard  to  the  philosophy  of  words,  taken  as  instruments 
of  thought ,  which  is  the  particular  subject  under  discus¬ 
sion. 

To  understand  the  precise  power  of  words,  or  the  true 
theory  of  their  power,  without  some  reference  to  their 
origin,  will  be  difficult  or  impossible ;  for  it  is,  in  fact 
the  mode  of  their  origin  that  reveals  their  power.  And 
yet  what  we  say  of  their  power  may  be  true,  in  general, 
if  what  we  say  of  their  origin  should  not  hold  in  every 
particular. 

It  is  undoubtedly  true,  as  many  have  asserted,  that 
human  language  is  a  gift  of  God  to  the  race,  though  not, 
I  think,  in  the  sense  often  contended  for.  It  is  by  no 
means  asserted,  in  the  scriptures  to  which  they  refer, 
that  God  himself  pronounced  the  sounds,  or  vocal  names, 
by  which  the  objects  of  the  world  were  represented,  nor 
that  He  framed  these  names  into  a  grammar.  It  is  only 
implied  in  what  is  said  that  He  first  called  into  action  the 
instinct  of  language  in  our  father,  by  directing  his  mind 
to  the  objects  round  him,  “to  see  what  he  would  call 
them.”  He  was,  Himself,  in  this  view,  the  occasional 
cause  of  the  naming  process  ;  and,  considering  the  nature 
of  the  first  man  to  hav'e  been  originally  framed  for  lan¬ 
guage,  he  was  the  creative  cause  ;  still  the  man  himself,  ic 
2 


14 


ORIGIN  OF 


his  own  freedom,  is  the  immediate,  operative  cause  th< 
language  produced  is  as  truly  a  human,  as  a  di/ine 
product.  It  is  not  only  for  the  race,  but  it  is  also  of  the 
race — a  human  development,  as  truly  as  knowledge,  or 
virtue,  or  the  forms  of  the  social  state. 

Bui;,  il  we  believe  the  scriptures,  there  is  far  less  de¬ 
pending  on  this  particular  history  than  many  seem  to 
suppose.  For,  in  whatever  manner  the  first  language 
came  into  being,  it  is  expressly  declared,  afterwards,  to 
be  in  existence  no  longer.  Thus  when  it  is  affirmed  in 
the  history  of  Babel  and  the  dispersion,  that  God  there 
confounded  the  language  of  the  race,  that  they  might 
“not  understand”  each  other  and  might  be  “scattered 
abroad  over  the  eai  th,”  it  is  plainly  testified,  howsoever 
the  first  language  came  into  being,  that  it  exists  no  longer. 
Accordingly,  the  attempt  so  eagerly  prosecuted,  in  former 
times,  to  ascertain  what  living  language  is  descended  from 
the  first  language,  is  really  an  attempt,  under  counte¬ 
nance  of  the  Bible,  to  prove  the  Bible  untrue.  And  so, 
when  our  modern  ethnologists  undertake,  as  they  say,  in 
behalf  of  the  scriptures,  to  establish  the  unity  of  the 
human  race,  by  tracing  all  human  languages  to  some 
common  source,  through  a  comparison  of  terms,  or 
names,  found  in  them  all,  they  would  seem  to  controvert 
the  authority  of  the  scriptures  by  their  argument,  quite  as 
effectually  as  they  sustain  it.  No  fair  construction  can 
be  given  to  the  history  of  the  dispersion,  as  recorded  by 
Moses,  without  understanding  him  to  affirm  the  virtual 
destruction  of  the  one  language  of  the  race  by  a  miracle. 
According  to  the  representation  given,  they  are  here 
thrown  back  once  more,  on  their  linguistic  instincts. 


LANGUAGE . 


15 


and  we  are  to  look  for  the  development  of  new  languages, 
radically  distinct  from  each  other,  such  as  the  free  move 
ment  of  small  families  or  circles,  instigated  each  by 
peculiar  circumstances  and  causes,  may  produce.  Nor 
have  our  ethnologists  been  able,  as  yet,  with  all  their 
supposed  discoveries,  to  disprove,  at  all,  the  original  dis¬ 
tinctness  of  many  of  the  existing  languages.  Within 
certain  circles  of  language,  they  seem  to  have  a  degree 
of  success ;  but  when  they  pass  to  certain  larger  circles — 
from  the  Indo-Germanic  languages,  for  example,  to  the 
American  or  the  Chinese — they  find  the  matter  offered  to 
their  theories  wholly  intractable  and  unreducible.  So, 
I  will  even  dare  to  prophesy,  it  always  will  be.  I  will 
also  venture,  with  as  much  deference  to  the  great 
learning  of  our  investigators  in  this  field,  as  properly 
becomes  one  who  is  only  a  spectator  of  their  works,  to 
suggest  the  inquiry,  whether  it  is  not  likely,  sometime, 
to  be  discovered,  that  the  very  mode  of  the  argument 
hitherto  used  is  involved  in  mistake.  For  if  com¬ 
mon  terms  are  found  sprinkled  through  many  languages, 
and  are  taken  to  indicate  a  common  origin  in  the  lan¬ 
guages  where  they  are  found,  do  not  the  diverse  terms, 
made  use  of  as  names  of  things  in  the  same  languages, 
indicate,  quite  as  conclusively,  and  even  more  conclu¬ 
sively,  the  original  distinctness  of  these  languages  ? 
There  would  be  common  terms,  of  course,  in  languages 
radically  distinct ;  such  as  have  been  conveyed  by  emi¬ 
grations,  wars,  and  the  mixture  of  races  ;  such  as  relate 
to  objects,  measures,  numerals,  and  dates,  employed  in 
the  intercourse  of  commerce.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is 
impossible  to  conceive  how  different  names  for  the  same 


16 


SUBJECT  OF 


thing,  and  that  a  thing  every  day  spoken  of  by  every 
body,  could  have  come  into  use,  after  having  once  had 
the  same  name — how  oak  became  quercus,  for  example, 
or  quercus ,  oak ;  how  house  became  domus ;  cloud ,  nubes ; 
ight,  lux;  or  the  contrary.  What  do  such  diversities 
indicate,  in  fact,  and  that  on  the  broadest  scale,  but  that 
some  time  or  other,  there  have  been  distinct  namings  ot 
things  ;  or,  what  is  nowise  different,  the  existence  of  dis¬ 
tinct  original  languages  ?  It  is  often  true,  in  the  specu¬ 
lations  of  the  philosophers  and  literati,  as  in  medicine, 
and,  I  suppose  I  must  add,  in  theology,  that  they  go  by  a 
fashion.  Have  we  no  reason  to  anticipate  that  a  con¬ 
trary  fashion  will  sometime  come  into  vogue  among  them, 
and  that  we  shall  sometime  find  them  arguing  for  original 
diversities  of  language,  as  strenuously  as  now  for  the  origi¬ 
nal  unity  of  language  ?  This,  I  judge,  is  the  view,  in 
fact,  of  Adelung,  and,  in  a  less  decided  form,  of  William 
Yon  Humboldt,  two  of  the  most  competent  and  most 
respected  investigators  in  this  field. 

At  the  same  time,  it  cannot  be  pretended,  by  those 
who  are  most  sanguine  in  the  hope  of  sometime  reducing 
all  existing  languages  to  a  common  origin  or  parentage, 
that  the  investigations  hitherto  made  have  yielded  any 
definite  token  of  success,  except  within  certain  acknow¬ 
ledged  limits  of  affinity.  The  fact  that  there  are  living 
languages,  between  which  no  real  affinity  can  be  dis¬ 
covered,  still  exists  in  its  integrity.  And  therefore  we 
must  either  admit  the  existence  of  races  originally  dis¬ 
tinct,  or  else  we  must  refer  these  languages  to  the  scrip 
lure  solution  of  a  miracle. 


LANGUAGE. 


11 

And  now  the  question  rises,  in  what  manner  were 
these  distinct  languages  produced  ?  It  is  not  a  question 
about  language  in  general,  or  some  one  language  in  par¬ 
ticular,  but  about  the  languages.  If  we  say  that  God, 
by  direct  pronunciation  of  words,  taught  man  language 
we  must  mean  that  he  taught,  in  this  manner,  as  many 
distinct  languages  as  there  are,  else  our  solution  is  too 
narrow  for  the  problem.  And  as  probably  no  one  will 
imagine  that  God  has,  at  any  time,  pronounced  to  the 
different  families  of  the  race  so  many  languages,  we  fall 
back,  most  naturally,  upon  the  view  just  given  of  the 
formation  of  the  first  language,  and  take  up  the  belief 
that  all  these  different  languages  are  so  many  free  devel¬ 
opments  of  the  race ;  though  all  from  God,  in  the  sense 
that  he  has  created  in  all  human  beings  a  certain  free 
power  of  self-representation  or  expression,  which  is  itself 
a  distinct  capacity  for  language,  and,  in  one  view,  lan¬ 
guage  itself. 

Nor  is  there  any  so  great  impossibility  or  mystery  in 
this  matter  of  originating  a  language,  as  many  seem  to 
suppose.  I  hope  it  will  not  offend  the  romantic  or  mar¬ 
veling  propensity  of  my  readers,  if  I  affirm  that  a  new 
a.’guage  has  been  created  and  has  perished,  in  Connec¬ 
ticut,  within  the  present  century.  A  very  distinguished 
citizen,  whose  name  is  familiar  to  the  country  at  large, 
himself  a  scholar  and  a  keen  philosophic  observer,  had  a 
pair  of  twin  boys,  who  were  drawn  to  each  other  with 
such  a  mysterious  and  truly  congenital  fondness  as  to  be 
totally  occupied  with  each  other,  and  thus  to  make  little 
or  no  progress  in  learning  the  language  of  the  family 

Meantime,  they  were  constantly  talking  with  each  othei 

2* 


18 


FORMATION  OF 


in  a  language  constructed  between  them,  which  no  one 
but  themselves  could  understand.  In  this  language  they 
conversed  at  their  plays  as  freely  as  men  at  their  bush 
ness,  and  in  a  manner  that  indicated  the  most  perfect  in¬ 
telligence  between  them.  At  an  early  age  one  of  them 
died ;  and  with  him  died,  never  to  be  spoken  again,  what, 
beyond  any  reason  for  doubt,  was  the  root  of  a  new  original 
diversity  of  human  speech — a  new  tongue.  Nor  is  there 
any  reason  to  doubt  that  incipient  and  rudimental  efforts 
of  nature,  in  this  direction,  are  often  made,  though  in 
cases  and  modes  that  escape  attention.  Indeed,  to  be¬ 
lieve  that  any  two  human  beings,  shut  up  wholly  to  each 
other,  to  live  together  until  they  are  of  a  mature  age, 
would  not  construct  a  language,  is  equivalent,  in  my 
estimation,  to  a  denial  of  their  proper  humanity. 

Let  us  trace  the  manner  in  a  supposed  experiment ; 
for,  in  this  way,  the  true  conception  of  language  as  a 
human  product,  and  also  as  a  vehicle  of  thought,  will  be 
exhibited  with  more  clearness  and  facility  than  in  any 
other.  The  experiment  can  be  made  only  in  a  small 
circle,  as  in  a  family,  or  between  two  or  three  indi¬ 
viduals  ;  for  the  sounds  of  a  new  language  could  never 
settle  into  a  current  use  and  significance,  where  many 
persons,  or  a  large  community,  are  concerned ;  because 
they  do  not  exist  together  in  terms  of  sufficient  closeness 
and  mutuality  to  allow  the  growth  of  common  uses. 
Perceiving  this,  even  Caesar  confessed  his  inability,  with 
all  the  authority  he  had,  to  give  currency  to  but  a  single 
word. 

We  suppose,  then,  two  human  persons  to  be  thrown 
together,  who,  as  yet,  have  never  heard  the  use  of  words. 


LANGUAGE. 


19 


and,  of  course,  have  no  language.  Considered  simply  as 
human,  they  have  a  certain  ground  or  preparation  in  their 
very  nature  for  speech.  In  one  view,  language  is  in 
them  potentially  beforehand,  only  it  is  not  developed 
into  actual  existence ;  they  are  linguistic  natures,  so  tc 
speak,  only  it  is  not  yet  clear  what  kind  of  tongue  they 
are  going  to  create.  This,  in  fact,  is  the  opinion  of 
Humboldt,  and  also  of  many  of  the  most  competent 
philologists.  “  Speech,”  he  says,  “  according  to  my 
fullest  conviction,  must  really  be  considered  as  inherent 
in  man :  language  could  not  have  been  invented  without 
its  type  pre-existing  in  man.”  This  being  true,  we  are 
then  to  see  it  formed  or  developed  afterward,  and  become 
a  historical  fact.  As  to  the  manner  in  which  the  process 
goes  on,  I  find  no  conception  of  it  given  which  is  satisfac¬ 
tory,  or  which  adequately  explains  a  universal  fact  per¬ 
taining  to  the  significance  and  power  of  language,  as  an 
instrument  of  thought  and  spiritual  expression. 

There  is  no  difficulty  in  perceiving  how  our  two  un- 
languaged  men  will  proceed,  when  thrown  together  in 
the  manner  supposed,  as  far  as  the  naming  of  sensations 
or  physical  objects  is  concerned.  For  the  object  is 
always  present  as  a  mediator  or  interpreter  between 
them,  so  that  when  a  sound  is  uttered  as  a  name  for  it, 
or  in  connection  with  it,  they  may  always  know  to  what 
the  sound  or  name  refers.  Thus  all  sights,  sounds,  smells, 
tastes,  and  touches,  or  feelings,  or  what  is  the  same,  their 
objects,  are  easily  named,  and  their  names  will  come  into 
currency  without  difficulty,  when  sounded  as  representa¬ 
tives  of  the  objects.  As  to  tne  sounds  adopted,  they  will 
generally  be  determined  arbitrarily,  or,  at  least,  by  causes 


20 


FORMATION  OF 


so  occult  or  remote  that  we  must  regard  them  as  arbi. 
trary.  There  may  have  been  reasons  why  one  says  tree, 
and  another  arbor;  one  rock,  and  another  saocum ;  one 
star ,  and  another  stella ;  one  sun,  and  another  sol ;  but  if 
there  are  such  reasons,  they  are  too  abstruse  to  be  inves¬ 
tigated.  Sometimes  when  sounds  are  the  objects  named 
they  will  very  naturally  be  imitated ;  as  in  hoarse  and 
hiss.  Still,  no  theory  of  sound,  as  connected  with  sense, 
in  the  names  of  things,  will  be  found  to  hold  extensively 
enough  to  give  it  any  moment.  In  the  languages  radi¬ 
cally  distinct,  we  shall  find  that  the  sounds  or  names 
which  stand  for  the  same  objects,  have  generally  no  simi- 
arity  whatever;  whence  it  follows,  irresistibly,  that 
nothing  in  the  laws  of  voice  or  sound  has  determined  the 
names  adopted. 

We  have  now  seen  how  our  two  language- makers  will 

O  O 

get  on,  in  the  naming  of  things  or  physical  objects.  In 
this  manner  they  will  make  out  a  string  of  nouns  or 
names,  which  may  be  called  a  noun-language.  It  will- 
comprise  the  names  of  all  physical  objects  and  demon¬ 
strations,  including,  of  course,  the  names  of  actions ; 
for  verbs,  prior  to  the  formation  of  grammar,  are  only 
the  nouns  or  names  of  actions.  Thus  far  we  have 
generated  only  a  physical  language,  or  terms  of  physical 
:*mport,  And  thus  far,  even,  animals  are  capable  of  lan¬ 
guage  :  they  can  learn,  though  not  as  easily  and  on  as 
large  a  scale  as  we,  to  associate  names  or  sounds  with 
outward  things  and  actions. 

There  now  remains  to  be  formed  another  sphere  of 
language,  wholly  distinct,  which  the  animals  cannot  learn, 
viz.:  the  language  of  intelligence ;  that  which,  under  an 


LANGUAGE. 


21 


outward  form,  carries  an  inward  sense,  and  so  avails  tc 
serve  the  uses  of  mind.  It  has  been  easy  for  our  lan¬ 
guage-makers  to  agree  in  the  use  of  sounds  standing  for 
outward  objects  and  acts,  because  these  outward  objects 
and  acts  can  be  so  fixed  upon,  or  the  mind  so  directed 
towards  them,  that  a  mutual  understanding  may  be  had 
in  regard  to  the  object  which  it  is  designed  to  name, 
before  the  name  to  be  adopted  is  uttered.  But  if,  now, 
one  of  them  has  a  thought  or  emotion  in  his  mind,  or 
wishes  to  speak  of  a  spiritual  being  or  world,  this,  it  will 
be  seen,  is  not  capable  of  being  shown  or  pointed  at, 
because  it  lies  out  of  sense.  The  thought  or  emotion 
cannot  be  taken  out  and  exhibited  to  the  eye  :  how,  then, 
can  the  two  parties  come  to  any  such  understanding  as 
will  enable  them  to  name  it  ?  Here  is  a  difficulty,  and 
it  is  the  great  difficulty  to  be  surmounted,  in  the  produc¬ 
tion  of  intellectual  language.  And  if  we  are  to  under¬ 
stand  the  nature  of  language  as  an  instrument  of  thought 
and  spiritual  truth,  or  to  judge  of  its  capacity  for  uses 
of  this  kind,  it  will  be  just  here,  in  the  solution  of  this 
difficulty  relating  to  the  genesis  of  language,  that  we 
shall  get  the  desired  key  to  its  significance  in  such  uses. 

How,  then,  shall  our  experimenters  proceed?  Obvi¬ 
ously  they  cannot  advance  at  all,  save  through  the  me¬ 
diation  of  things ;  that  is,  of  objects  and  acts  in  the 
sensible  world,  which  may  come  in  to  their  aid  as  signs 
of  thought,  or  interpreters  between  them.  It  is  only  as 
there  is  a  Logos  in  the  outward  world,  answering  to  the 
logos  or  internal  reason  of  the  parties,  that  they  can 
come  into  a  mutual  understanding  in  regard  to  any 
thought  or  spiritual  state  whatever.  To  use  a  more 


22 


FORMATION  OF 


familiar  expression,  there  is  a  vast  analogy  in  things, 
winch  prepares  them,  as  forms,  to  be  signs  or  figures  oi 
thoughts,  and  thus,  bases  or  types  of  words.  Our  bodily 
mechanism,  and  the  sensible  world  we  live  in,  are,  in 
fact,  made  up  of  words,  to  represent  our  thoughts  and 
internal  states ; — they  only  want  naming,  and  then, 
passing  into  sound,  to  be  re-produced  or  have  their 
images  called  up  by  sounds,  they  drop  out,  so  to  speak, 
their  gross  material  quality,  and  become  words  of  spirit, 
or  what  the  poet  calls  “  winged  words — cursitating 
forms  of  life,  that  fly  out  in  sound  upon  the  air,  as  inter¬ 
preters  and  messengers  of  thought  between  the  minds  of 
men. 

Thus,  if  the  mind  of  one  of  our  two  strangers  is 
laboring  with  any  thought  or  emotion,  he  will  strike  at 
some  image  or  figure  in  the  sensible  world,  that  is  itsell 
a  fit  representation  of  his  thought  or  emotion — a  form 
prepared  in  nature  to  be  its  type.  Turning  the  attention 
of  the  other  party  upon  this  image,  and  signifying  by 
gesture,  probably,  that  he  is  trying  to  mirror  some  inter¬ 
nal  state  in  it,  he  puts  the  other  party  on  generating  that 
internal  state,  or  the  conception  of  it.  The  image 
becomes,  in  fact,  a  common  sign  or  conception  of  the 
same  internal  state — they  understand  each  other.  Sc 
that,  now,  the  name,  when  it  is  sounded,  will  stand,  not 
merely  as  the  name  of  the  object  or  image  physically 
taken,  but  the  name,  also,  of  that  thought  which  it 
represented.  And  thus  an  intellectual  word  is  generated. 

I  do  not  mean  by  this  to  imply  that  our  language- 
makers  will  be  acting  as  philosophers  in  this  process, 
reflecting  on  their  own  states,  and  then  finding  images  to 


LANGUAGE. 


23 


figure  them,  or  stand  as  words  for  them.  On  the  con¬ 
trary,  they  will  be  struggling  out  into  speech,  in  the  sim* 
plicity  of  children,  guided  not  by  reflection,  but  more  :.y 
instinct.  A  very  large  share  of  the  signs  by  which  they 
interpret  their  thoughts  one  to  the  other,  will  consist  of 
bodily  gestures  and  actions — all  as  natural  to  the  inter¬ 
nal  activity  as  a  blush,  or  any  flush  of  passion,  to  the 
inner  state,  represented  and  depicted  by  it  in  the  face. 
For  the  body  is  a  living  logos,  added  to  the  soul,  to  be 
its  form,  and  play  it  forth  into  social  understanding.  It 
will  also  be  found  that  a  very  large  share  of  the  words 
■which  represent  our  emotions  and  thoughts,  are,  in  fact, 
as  their  etymology  declares,  derived  from  the  psychologi¬ 
cal  expressions  or  demonstrations  made  through  the  body. 
Or  when  thoughts  and  emotions  are  represented  by 
figures  drawn  from  the  physical  creation  above  us  and 
around  us,  the  principle  is  the  same :  it  is  not  done  arti¬ 
ficially,  but  by  the  simple  force  of  nature.  The  soul 
that  is  struggling  to  utter  itself,  flies  to  whatever  signs 
and  instruments  it  can  find  in  the  visible  world,  calling 
them  in  to  act  as  interpreters,  naming  them  at  the  same 
time,  to  stand,  ever  after,  as  interpreters  in  sound,  when 
they  are  themselves  out  of  sight. 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  suggest,  that,  when  a  physical 
object  or  action  has  gotten  a  name  beforehand,  in  the 
noun-language  of  physics,  our  two  experimenters  will, 
sometimes,  recall  the  name  or  word,  using  it  now  as  a 
figure,  in  a  secondary  sense,  to  represent  a  thought  or 
feeling.  But  here  the  process  of  manufacture,  philo¬ 
sophically  speaking,  is  the  same.  If  the  word  becomes 
devoted  to  the  secondary  use,  it  will  stand,  as  in  the 


24 


FORMATION  OF 


cases  above  described — a  name  of  some  physical  form 
or  appearance,  which  form  or  appearance  shadows  forth 
a  thought  or  truth  of  the  mind — then,  by  use,  the  regular 
suggestive  of  that  thought  or  truth,  and  its  representa¬ 
tive  in  the  current  utterances  of  speech. 

We  find,  then,  that  every  language  contains  two  dis¬ 
tinct  departments : — the  physical  department — that  which 
provides  names  for  things ;  and  the  intellectual  depart¬ 
ment — that  which  provides  names  for  thought  and  spirit. 
In  the  former,  names  are  simple  representatives  of  things, 
which  even  the  animals  may  learn.  In  the  latter,  the 
names  of  things  are  used  as  representatives  of  thought, 
and  cannot,  therefore,  be  learned,  save  by  beings  of  intel¬ 
ligence — ( intus  lego) — that  is,  beings  who  can  read  the 
inner  sense,  or  receive  the  inner  contents  of  words ; 
beings  in  whom  the  Logos  of  the  creation  finds  a  corres¬ 
pondent  logos,  or  reason,  to  receive  and  employ  the  types 
it  offers,  in  their  true  power. 


For  the  benefit  of  the  mere  English  reader,  who  is 
wholly  unexercised  in  subjects  of  this  nature,  it  may 
be  important  to  say,  that  what  is  here  advanced  in 
theory,  is  fully  supported  by  reference  to  the  actual  his¬ 
tory  of  our  words.  We  cannot  always,  or  in  every  in¬ 
stance,  show  what  physical  object  or  act  lies  named  in 
our  intellectual  words  to  give  them  their  power ;  though 
in  a  great  majority  of  cases,  the  words  carry  their  origin 
in  their  face ;  and  where  they  do  not,  it  is  only  to  be 
supposed  that  the  physical  history  of  the  word  or  name 
is  lost. 

Thus,  the  word  spirit  means,  originally,  breath,  or  air 


LANGUAGE. 


25 


in  motion ;  that  being  the  symbol,  in  nature,  of  a  power 
moving  unseen. 

The  word  religion  is  re,  back,  and  ligo,  to  bind — the 
conception  being  that  man  is  made  to  be  free,  but  bound 
back  in  terms  of  obligation  to  his  Maker. 

In  the  same  manner,  expectation  is  a  looking  forth,  and 
hope  a  reaching  forth,  in  which  we  see  how  accurately 
the  original  physical  meaning  of  the  word  governs  and 
distinguishes  the  internal  meaning ;  for  we  look  out  for 
[expect]  the  coming  of  things  both  good  and  bad,  but 
reach  after  [hope  for]  only  those  that  we  desire. 

In  the  same  way  we  ha ve  prefer,  to  set  before  ;  abstrac¬ 
tion,  drawing  apart ;  reflection,  turning  back  ;  obedience , 
before-hearing,  as  when  a  servant  stands  before  his 
master,  listening  to  receive  his  commands  ;  glory,  bright¬ 
ness  ;  grace,  outward  beauty  or  concinnity ;  faith,  a  tie 
or  ligature  ;  right,  straight. 

Or  sometimes  a  word  takes  a  historical  origin.  Thus, 
the  word  sincerity  is  supposed  to  be  the  same  as  sine, 
without,  and  cera,  wax ;  the  practice  of  the  Roman  pot¬ 
ters  being,  to  rub  wax  into  the  flaws  of  their  unsound 
vessels  when  they  sent  them  to  market.  A  sincere 
[without-wax]  vessel  was  the  same  as  a  sound  vessel, 
one  that  had  no  disguised  flaw. 

The  English  reader  is  to  understand  that  all  the  terms 
in  language,  which  are  devoted  to  spiritual  and  intel¬ 
lectual  uses,  have  a  physical  or  outward  sign  underlying 
their  import,  as  in  the  cases  here  named.  Of  this  the 
scholar  has  never  a  doubt,  although  he  cannot  always,  or 
in  every  instance,  trace  out  the  physical  sign  or  base  ol 
the  word,  so  as  to  be  certain  of  it.  All  things  out  o 


26 


GkAMMAR. 


sense  get  their  names  in  language  through  signs  and 
objects  in  sense  that  have  some  mysterious  correspond¬ 
ence  or  analogy,  by  which  they  are  prepared  beforehand 
to  serve  as  signs  or  vehicles  of  the  spiritual  things  to  be 
expressed. 

But  as  yet  we  have  no  grammar ;  we  have  only  nouns 
to  represent  the  objects,  physical  and  intellectual,  about 
which  we  may  wish  to  communicate.  We  have  what 
Klaproth  calls,  “  the  stuff  or  matter  of  language,”  and 
“  grammar  is  to  be  the  fashioning  or  form.” 

I  do  not  say  that  grammar,  or  the  framing  of  words 
into  sentences,  is  to  be  a  matter  wholly  subsequent  in 
time ;  for  we  shall  see,  by  and  by,  that  the  relations  of 
things  in  space  are  such  as  must,  by  necessary  conse¬ 
quence,  give  laws  of  grammar  at  last  to  the  words  by 
which  they  are  named  ;  and,  of  course,  we  are  to  suppose  a 
rudimental  tendency  to  grammar,  in  the  first  efforts  of 
speech.  But  this  tendency  will  complete  its  aim,  or 
produce  a  complete  grammar,  only  under  conditions  of 
time  and  use. 

Thus  a  warm ,  that  is,  a  sensation  of  warmth,  being 
always  spoken  of  in  connection  with  some  object  in 
which  the  warmth  resides,  will  become  an  appendant 
word,  or  ad-jective. 

Adverbs  will  be  formed,  out  of  original  nouns  oi  names 
of  things,  in  a  similar  way. 

Prepositions  and  conjunctions,  though  indicating  no 
such  fact  to  the  mere  English  reader,  are  all,  originally, 
names  of  things  or  actions,  and  are  reduced  to  iheir 
present  humble  condition  of  servitude,  by  the  process 


GRAMMAR. 


2 


which  constructs  a  grammar.  Thus  the  word  through , 
and  the  word  door ,  when  traced  historically,  coalesce  in 
the  same  origin.  Nor  could  anything  be  more  natural, 
in  stringing  nouns  together,  before  any  precise  grammar 
is  formed,  to  speak  of  going  door  any  wall  or  obstacle  ; 
which,  if  it  were  continued,  would  shortly  make  the  word 
door  into  a  preposition,  as  we  actually  see  in  the  word 
through. 

In  the  same  way  the  preposition  by  is  supposed  to  be 
the  relic  of  a  verb  or  noun  of  action,  which  signified 
pressing  close  upon,  or  rubbing. 

So  the  conjunction  if,  is  known  to  be  the  imperative 
mood  of  the  verb  to  give,  and  is  written  in  the  old 
English,  gif,  with  the  particle  that  after  it.  “I  will  do 
this  gif  that  [if]  you  will  do  the  other.” 

In  the  same  way,  it  is  discovered,  to  the  satisfaction  of 
Horne  Tooke  and  other  philologists,  that  the  conjunction 
and  is  the  same  as  the  imperative  mood  of  add,  or  an-add 
[ on-add ]  contracted.  “Love  and  [on-add]  truth.” 

It  would  carry  me  too  far,  to  go  at  large  into  illustra¬ 
tions  of  the  process  by  which  the  original  noun-words 
are  wrought  into  grammar.  My  object  in  adducing  these 
few  examples,  is  simply  to  indicate  the  manner  of  the 
process  far  enough  to  remove  any  suspicion  of  mistake 
in  th;3  conclusion  at  which  we  had  before  come,  that  ah 
the  terms  of  language  are  originally  names  of  things  or 
sensible  appearances.  As  regards  the  connection  of 
subject  and  predicate  in  sentences,  or,  what  is  the  same, 
the  grammatical  structure  of  sentences,  it  must  suffice  to 
say  that  verbs  are  originally  mere  names  of  acts,  or 
phenomena  of  action,  not  distinguished  from  what  are 


28 


GRAMMAR. 


called  nouns,  or  names  of  things,  until  use  settles  them 
into  place  in  propositions  or  forms  of  affirmation.  A 
shine  and  a  run  are  names  of  appearances,  just  as  a  sun 
and  a  fiver  are  names  of  appearances.  And  when  these 
names  are  strung  together,  in  the  use,  the  sun  and  the 
shine,  the  river  and  the  run,  the  idea  of  subject  and 
predicate  becomes  associated,  and  the  grammatical  rela¬ 
tion  of  subject  and  predicate  is  developed  as  a  law  of 
speech  between  them.  I  speak  not  here  of  the  order  of 
subject  and  predicate  in  sentences,  for  the  order  will 
differ  in  different  languages.  I  only  indicate  the  manner 
in  which  the  relative  qualities  of  subject  and  predicate 
are  d~~«loped  in  language.  Nature  having  them  in  her 
own  bosom,  existing  there  in  real  grammatical  relation, 
not  only  gives  us  the  words,  but  shows  us  how  to  frame 
'them  into  propositions.  And  in  the  same  way,  it  will  be 
observed,  in  the  hints  just  given  concerning  other  parts 
of  speech  or  grammatic  elements,  that  they  really  have 
their  birth  in  the  grammar  of  the  world.  The  preposi¬ 
tions,  for  example,  the  over,  the  under,  the  through,  the 
hy,  are  all  so  many  actual  relations ;  and  when  the  sub¬ 
jects  and  predicates  are  brought  into  speech,  these  come 
also  with  them.  And  then,  when  propositions  are 
advanced  which  relate  to  thought  or  spirit,  where,  in  one 
view,  the  over,  the  under,  the  through,  the  hy,  are  totally 
irrelevant,  though,  and  spirit  not  being  under  the  laws 
of  space,  still  there  is  a  mysterious  relation  in  these  out¬ 
ward  analogies  of  space  to  the  workings  of  the  mind, 
such  that  the  external  grammar  of  creation  answers  to 
the  internal  grammar  of  the  soul,  and  becomes  its  vehicle. 

As  a  further  illustration  of  the  same  general  view  I 


GRAMMAR. 


29 


would  refer  the  reader  to  a  beautiful  theory,  if  it 
should  not,  rather,  be  called  discovery,  of  Professor 
Gibbs,  relating  to  case  in  grammar,  or  more  particu¬ 
larly  to  “case  in  the  Indo-Germanic  languages,”  The 
exposition  of  this  theory  will  be  found  in  the  Chris¬ 
tian  Spectator,  Yol.  IX.  Here  it  is  shown  that,  as  words 
themselves,  or  the  bases  of  words,  are  found  in  space,  so 
they  are  declined  or  formed  into  grammar  under  the 
relations  of  space.  Thus  it  is  ascertained  that  there  is 
one  case  which  represents  the  where  of  a  predicate,  a 
second  the  whence,  a  third  the  whither,  a  fourth  the  by, 
or  through  what  place.  This,  in  regard  to  words  taken 
in  their  most  external  and  physical  senses.  And  then, 
precisely  as  physical  objects  become  types  or  bases  o, 
words  having  an  intellectual  significance,  so,  or  in  virtue 
of  the  same  kind  of  analogy,  the  relations  of  space  under 
which  we  find  these  objects,  ascend  with  them  to  partake 
in  their  elevation,  and  shape  their  fitness  to  the  uses  of  the 
mind.  Thus,  in  the  department  of  mind  or  spirit,  four 
cases  are  found  answering  to  the  four  just  named,  em¬ 
ployed  no  longer  to  denote  external  relations,  but  the 
internal  relations  of  thought  and  action — an  internal 
where,  whence ,  whither ,  and  by  or  through  what  place. 
Prof.  G.  does  not  undertake  to  verify  these  deductions, 
except  in  the  particular  families  of  languages  under 
examination.  Still,  it  is  very  obvious  that  such  results 
in  grammar  do  not  take  place  apart  from  some  inherent 
law  or  system  pertaining  either  to  mind,  or  to  outward 
space,  or  to  one  as  related  to  the  other.  Indeed,  it  is 
impossible,  with  such  a  revelation  before  us  not  to  take 
Hp  at  once,  the  sublime  conviction  just  now  named,  that 


30 


GRAMMAR. 


grammar  itself  is,  in  some  sense,  of  the  outer  world — in  the 
same  way  as  the  terms  or  names  out  of  which  language 
is  constructed.  In  this  view,  which  it  is  not  rash  to 
believe  will  sometime  be  fully  established,  the  outer 
war;d  is  seen  to  be  a  vast  menstruum  of  thought  or  intelli¬ 
gence.  There  is  a  logos  in  the  forms  of  things,  by 
which  they  are  prepared  to  serve  as  types  or  images  of 
what  is  inmost  in  our  souls ;  and  then  there  is  a  logos 
also  of  construction  in  the  relations  of  space,  the  position, 
qualities,  connections,  and  predicates  of  things,  by  which 
they  are  framed  into  grammar.  In  one  word,  the  outer 
world,  which  envelops  our  being,  is  itself  language,  the 
power  of  all  language.  Day  unto  day  uttereth  speech, 
and  night  unto  night  showeth  knowledge ;  there  is  no 
speech  nor  language  where  their  voice  is  not  heard, — 
their  line  is  gone  out  through  all  the  earth,  and  their 
words  to  the  end  of  the  world. 

And  if  the  outer  world  is  the  vast  dictionary  and 
grammar  of  thought  we  speak  of,  then  it  is  also  itself  an 
rgan  throughout  of  Intelligence.  Whose  intelligence  ? 
fBy  this  question  we  are  set  directly  confronting  God, 
/  the  universal  Author,  no  more  to  hunt  for  Him  by  curious 
f  arguments  and  subtle  deductions,  if  haply  we  may  find 
Hivtl ,  but  He  stands  expressed  every  where,  so  that, 
turn  whichsoever  way  we  please,  we  behold  the  outlook- 
ing  of  His  intelligence.  No  series  of  Bridgewater  trea¬ 
tises,  piled  even  to  the  moon,  could  give  a  proof  of  God 
so  immediate,  complete,  and  conclusive. 

In  such  a  view  of  the  world,  too,  and  its  objects,  theie 
is  an  amazing  fund  of  inspiration  elsewhere  not  to  be 
found ,  The  holding  of  such  a  view  is,  in  fact,  sufficient 


GRAMMAR. 


31 


of  itself,  to  change  a  man’s  intellectual  capacities  and 
destiny ;  for  it  sets  him  always  in  the  presence  of  Divine 
thoughts  and  meanings ;  makes  even  the  words  he  utteis 
luminous  of  Divinity,  and  to  the  same  extent,  subjects  of 
love  and  reverence. 

The  Christian  public  of  our  country  are  well  aware  that 
t\ie  very  distinguished  scholar,  whose  theory  of  “  Case” 
I  just  now  cited,  has  never  been  celebrated  as  a  rhapso- 
dist,  or  enthusiast ;  and  I  know  not  any  stronger  proof, 
therefore,  of  the  inspiring  force  derivable  from  a  full 
insight  of  this  subject,  than  when  he  breaks  out  in  the 
midst  of  a  dry  grammatical  analysis,  in  the  following 
truly  eloquent  paragraph  : — 

“  There  can  be  no  exercise,  in  the  whole  business  of 
instruction,  more  useful  to  the  mind,  than  the  analysis  of 
sentences,  in  the  concentrated  light  of  grammar  and  logic. 
It  brings  one  into  the  sanctuary  of  human  thought.  All 
else  is  but  standing  in  the  outer  court.  He  who  is  with¬ 
out,  may,  indeed,  offer  incense ;  but  he  who  penetrates 
within,  worships  and  adores.  It  is  here  that  the  man  of 
science,  trained  to  close  thought  and  clear  vision,  surveys 
the  various  objects  of  his  study  with  a  more  expanded 
view,  and  a  more  discriminative  mind.  It  is  here  that 
the  interpreter,  accustomed  to  the  force  and  freshness  of 
natural  language,  is  prepared  to  explain  God’s  revealed 
Word  with  more  power  and  accuracy.  It  is  here  that 
the  orator  learns  to  wield,  with  a  heavier  arm,  the 
weapons  of  his  warfare.  It  is  here  that  every  one,  who 
loves  to  think,  beholds  the  deep  things  of  the  human 
spirit,  and  learns  to  regard  with  holy  reverence  the 
sacred  symbols  of  human  thought.” 


32 


GRAMMAR. 


-  This  paragraph,  taken  in  connection  with  the  illustra 
tions  of  the  article  just  referred  to,  has  the  inspiring  force 
even  of  a  lyric.  Rightly  spoken  is  it,  when  language  is 
represented  thus,  as  a  “sanctuary  of  thought.”  For,  in 
what  do  we  utter  ourselves,  what  are  the  words  and  the 
grammar,  in  which  we  speak,  but  instruments  of  a  Divine 
import  and  structure  ?  Such  a  discovery,  received  in  its 
true  moment,  were  enough  to  make  a  thoughtful  Chris¬ 
tian  stand  in  awe,  even  of  his  own  words. 

We  have  now  seen  in  what  manner  our  two  language- 
makers  will  proceed  to  construct  a  tongue.  It  is  not  my 
intention  to  say  that  the  process  will  go  on  in  the  exact 
order  here  described — first,  physical  terms  ;  second,  in¬ 
tellectual  ;  third,  a  grammar.  The  several  departments 
of  the  work  will  be  going  on  together,  under  the  guidance 
of  the  Word  or  Divine  Logos,  in  the  forms,  images, 
activities,  and  relations  of  the  outward  world.  For  He 
is  in  the  world,  and  the  world  was  made  by  Him,  though 
it  knows  Him  not.  It  speaks  in  words  He  gave,  and  under 
a  grammar  that  He  appointed,  and  yet  it  knows  Him 
not. 

I  have  suggested  the  fact  that  a  very  large  share  of  our 
intellectual  words  are  based  on  bodily  gestures  and 
demonstrations.  I  know  of  no  method  in  which  I  can 
oetter  indicate  the  simple,  instinctive,  inartificial  process 
of  word-making  and  grammar-making,  than  by  calling 
upon  the  reader  to  conceive  a  human  person  charged  with 
thought  and  passion — many  thoughts  and  many  passions 
— uttering  himself  instinctively  by  the  voice,  and  at  the 
same  time,  by  pantomime,  indigitation  of  symbols,  and 


GRAMMAR. 


33 


changes  of  look.  The  voice  will  attend  cr  follow  the 
action,  naming  off  its  demonstrations  as  bases  of  words ; 
the  action  will  supply  and  interpret  the  voice  ;  or  point¬ 
ing  to  signs  in  the  inanimate  world  adjacent,  summon 
these  to  act  as  interpreters,  and  become  bases  of  woras ; 
and  then,  as  all  this  transpires  in  space,  the  laws  of  space 
will  be  making  a  grammar  for  the  words,  and  determining 
their  law.  The  resulting  tongue  will  represent,  of  course, 
both  the  man’s  own  liberty  and  the  world  in  which  he 
moves.  And  then,  as  one  or  more  persons  beside  must 
be  concerned,  at  the  same  time,  the  process  will  be 
doubled  or  trebled ;  and  between  so  many  forces  all 
concurring,  a  tongue  or  language  will,  at  last,  be  matured 
that  will  represent  the  parties,  their  instincts,  characters, 
and  temperaments ;  all  the  circumstances  and  accidents, 
too,  of  the  outward  state. 

If  it  be  objected  to  this  view,  that  some  existing  lan¬ 
guages  have  no  grammar,  being  nothing  but  a  collection 
of  monosyllabic  names  or  sounds,  I  must  be  permitted  to 
doubt  whether  any  such  language  exists.  It  may  be 
that  no  laws  of  inflection,  or  conjugation,  or  even  of 
composition,  have  yet  been  discovered  in  the  Chinese 
language,  for  example  ;  nevertheless  it  must  be  clear  that 
some  law  of  relation,  some  condition  of  subject  and  predi¬ 
cate  pertains  to  that  tongue,  more  exact  than  tc  have  the 
words  somewhere  in  the  Chinese  empire,  and  that  law 
or  condition,  whatever  it  be,  is  in  fact  a  grammar. 
And  it  will  also  be  found,  when  philosophically  investi¬ 
gated,  that  this  Chinese  grammar,  whatever  it  may  be, 
really  represents  the  great  universal  grai  imar  of  the 
soul  and  the  creation. 


34 


VIEWS  OF  OTHERS. 


How  far  the  views  of  language,  here  offered,  coincide 
with  theories  advanced  by  distinguished  modern  philolo 
gists,  I  am  scarcely  able  to  say.  They  may  have  been 
wholly  anticipated,  or  they  may  be  already  exploded. 
It  would  be  singular,  if  the  scholars  who  are  spending 
their  lives  in  philological  studies,  should  not  detect  some 
mistakes  or  crudities  in  my  illustrations. 

The  very  distinguished  scholar,  Frederic  Schlegel,  if 
I  rightly  conceive  his  theory,  traces  not  merely  the 
forms  or  bases  of  words  to  the  creative  Logos,  but  also 
the  names  or  vocal  sounds  themselves.  Thus  he  speaks 
of  “words  which  in  the  unsearchable  interior  of  Deity 
are  spoken,  where,  as  in  holy  song  expressed,  depth  calleth 
unto  depth.”  Descending,  then,  to  the  account  of  language 
given  in  the  second  chapter  of  Genesis,  he  receives  it  as 
teaching  that  God  gave  to  Adam,  literally  and  vocally, 
the  rudiments  of  speech.  “  But,”  he  adds,  “  under  this 
simple  sense  there  lieth,  as  does  through  all  that  book  of 
twofold  import,  another  and  far  deeper  signification. 
The  name  of  any  thing  or  living  being,  as  it  is  called  in 
God ,  and  designated  from  eternity,  holds  in  itself  the 
essential  idea  of  its  innermost  being,  the  key  of  its  exist¬ 
ence,  the  deciding  power  of  its  being  or  not  being ;  and 
so  it  is  used,  in  sacred  speech,  where  it  is,  moreover,  in  a 
holiei  or  higher  sense,  united  to  the  idea  of  the  Word. 
According  to  this  deeper  sense  and  understanding,  it  is 
m  that  narration  shown  and  signified  that,  together  with 
speech,  entrusted,  communicated,  and  delivered  imme¬ 
diately  by  God  to  man,  and  through  it,  he  was  installed 
as  the  ruler  and  king  of  nature.” 

But,  unfortunately,  this  very  transcendental  theory 


VIEWS  OF  OTHERS. 


35 


will  account  for  but  one  language,  and  we  certainly 
know  that  there  are  more  than  one.  Besides,  what 
reasonable  man  can  suppose  that  “  names  ”  taken  as 
vocal  sounds  “  are  called  in  God,”  and  that  the  discourse 
of  divine  thought  is  transacted  by  means  of  internal  pro¬ 
nunciations  !  How  plain  is  it,  also,  that  “  the  name  of 
anything  holds  in  itself,  the  essential  idea  of  its  innermost 
being,”  and  becomes  “united  to  the  idea  of  the  Word,” 
not  as  a  sound,  but  simply  as  having  in  the  sound,  or 
named  by  the  sound,  a  physical  type  or  base,  which  is 
the  real  supporter  and  law  of  its  meaning,  and  the  reason 
of  its  connection  with  the  Logos.  In  other  words,  the 
truth  is  here  inverted  by  Schlegel ;  what  he  supposes  to 
be  from  the  name,  is  plainly  communicated  to  the  name. 

Some  of  the  Germans  are  endeavoring,  in  general 
coincidence  with  the  scheme  of  Schlegel,  to  elaborate  a 
theory  of  names,  taken  as  sounds,  by  which  they  will  be 
seen  to  represent  the  most  interior  qualities  of  the  objects 
named.  They  go  into  philosophic  experiments  on  sounds, 
and  find  reason,  as  they  think,  to  believe  that  all  objects 
express  their  true  nature  by  means  of  the  vibrations  they 
impart  to  the  air — that  is  by  their  sound.  That  precise 
sound,  accordingly,  is  their  name  in  language.  This 
most  subtle  and  beautiful  theory,  however,  will  be  seen 
at  a  glance,  to  have  no  real  countenance  in  facts  What 
endless  varieties  of  name  or  vocal  sound  are  employed  in 
the  different  languages  of  the  world,  to  signify  the  same 
objects  !  How,  then,  do  these  vocal  sounds  represent  the 
interior  nature,  or  proceed  from  the  interior  nature  of 
their  objects  ?  Indeed,  where  the  objects  named  are 
themselves  sounds,  the  names  have  yet,  in  most  cases,  nc 


36 


VIEWS  OF  OTHERS. 


agreement  whatever.  Thunder,  for  example,  is  the  same 
sound  the  world  over,  and  it  is  such  a  sound  as  we  might 
imagine  would  almost  certainly  be  imitated  in  the  name 
given  it.  And  yet,  if  we  turn  only  to  the  Amer't&B 
families  of  language,  we  are  surprised  to  find  tnat  thun¬ 
der  is  called,  in  the  Chickasaw,  ellolia ;  in  the  Creek, 
tenitka ;  in  the  Huron,  inon ;  in  the  Cadoes,  deshinin ; 
in  the  Nootka,  tuta.  Before  such  facts,  filling,  I  may 
say,  the  whole  domain  of  language,  all  theories  about  the 
representative  nature  of  names,  taken  as  sounds,  would 
seem  to  be  idle,  in  the  last  degree. 

Mr.  Locke  presents  a  view  of  language,  which,  if  we 
regard  the  mere  words  in  which  it  is  given,  would  seem 
even  to  be  identical  with  that  which  I  have  advanced. 
He  says, — “  It  may  also  lead  us  a  little  towards  the  origi¬ 
nal  of  all  our  notions  and  knowledge,  if  we  remark  how 
great  a  dependence  our  words  have  on  common  sensible 
ideas ;  and  how  those  which  are  made  use  of  to  stand  for 
actions  and  notions,  quite  removed  from  sense,  have 
their  rise  from  thence,  and  from  obvious  sensible  ideas 
are  transferred  to  more  abstruse  significations,  and  made 
to  stand  for  ideas  that  come  not  under  the  cognizance  oi 
our  senses,  e.  g.  to  imagine,  apprehend,  comprehend,  ad¬ 
here,  conceive,  instill,  disgust,  disturbance,  tranquillity, 
&c.,  are  all  words  taken  from  the  operations  of  sensible 
things,  and  applied  to  certain  modes  of  thinking.  Spirit, 
in  it  J  primary  signification,  is  breath ;  angel,  a  messen¬ 
ger  ,  and  I  doubt  not,  but,  if  we  could  trace  them  to  their 
sources,  we  should  find  in  all  languages,  the  names  which 
stand  for  things  that  fall  not  under  our  senses,  to  have 
had  their  rise  from  sensible  ideas.  By  which  we  may 


VIEWS  OF  OTHERS. 


37 


give  some  guess  what  kind  of  notions  they  were, 
and  whence  derived ,  which  filled  their  minds  who  were 
the  first  beginners  of  languages ;  and  how  nature,  even 
in  the  naming  of  things,  unawares  suggested  to  men  the 
originals  and  principals  of  all  their  knowledge  ;  whilst  to 
give  names  which  might  make  known  to  others  anv 
operations  they  felt  in  themselves,  or  any  other  ideas 
that  come  not  under  the  cognizance  of  the  senses,  they 
were  fain  to  borrow  words  from  ordinary  known  ideas  of 
sensation ;  by  that  means  to  make  others  the  more  easily 
to  conceive  those  operations  they  experimented  in  them 
selves,  which  made  no  outward  appearance.” 

It  is  remarkable  that  while  Mr.  Locke  seems  even  to 
set  forth,  in  these  terms,  the  precise  theory  of  language 
I  have  given,  he  is  yet  seen  really  to  hold  it  in  no  one  of 
Us  important  consequences.  He  even  denies,  shortly 
after,  that  there  is  any  “natural  connection  between 
words  and  ideas,”  and  declares  that  the  significance  ol 
words  is  given  “  by  a  perfectly  arbitrary  imposition,” — as 
if  there  were  no  analogy  whatever  between  the  bases  or 
types  of  words  and  the  thoughts  they  are  seized  upon  to 
represent.  Doubtless  the  true  solution  of  this  mixture  ot 
light  and  obscurity,  in  his  notions  of  language,  is  to 
be  found  in  the  fact  that  he  was  too  much  occupied  with 
his  theory  of  knowledge  as  derived  from  sensation,  really 
to  notice  the  true  import  and  scope  of  his  own  sugges¬ 
tions.  This  also  seems  to  be  indicated  as  a  fact,  by  the 
clauses  I  have  placed  in  italics. 

The  late  Dr.  Rauch,  in  his  work  on  ‘  Psychology,' 
gives  an  account  of  language  that  is  sufficiently  acute, 

and  is  generally  coincident  with  the  view  hf  re  advanced. 

4 


38 


TWO  DEPARTMENTS 


On  the  particular  point,  however,  which  is  labored  in 
this  article,  the  significance  of  language,  he  is  less  satis¬ 
factory  ;  coming,  in  fact,  to  no  results  that  are  of  any 
greav  practical  moment  in  determining  the  true  method 
of  moral  and  religious  inquiry.  He  grounds  the  possi 
bility  of  language  on  the  “  identity  ”  of  reason  and  nature, 
(p.  233,)  not  on  the  analogy  or  outward  analogical  rela¬ 
tion  of  the  latter  to  the  former.  And  that  he  has  not  mis¬ 
taken  his  English  word,  as  some  might  imagine,  appears, 
I  think,  from  the  important  fact  that  he  makes  no  distinc¬ 
tion  between  the  terms  of  mere  sense,  and  terms  of 
thought  or  intellectual  significance.  Nature  appears, 
in  his  view,  to  be  counterpart  to  reason,  in  such 
a  sense  that  the  names  of  sensation  and  the  names  of 
thoughts,  or  intellectual  states,  fall  into  the  same  category, 
to  be  interpreted  by  the  same  law.  Whereas,  if  there  be 
any  importance  in  the  view  I  would  present,  it  consists 
in  showing  that  all  terms  of  intellect  or  spirit  come  under 
a  wholly  different  law,  both  as  regards  their  origin  and 
their  interpretation,  from  the  terms  of  sense  or  the  mere 
names  of  things.  This  will  appear  more  fully  in  the 
illustrations  that  follow. 

We  pass  now  to  the  application  of  these  views  of  lan¬ 
guage,  or  the  power  they  are  entitled  to  have,  in  matters 
of  moral  and  religious  inquiry  and  especially  in  Chris¬ 
tian  theology. 

There  are,  as  we  discover,  two  languages,  in  fact,  in 
every  language.  Or  perhaps  I  shall  be  understood  more 
exactly,  if  I  say  that  there  are,  in  every  human  tongue, 
two  distinct  departments.  First,  there  is  a  literal  depart¬ 
ment,  in  which  sounds  are  provided  as  names  for  physi- 


.  N  LANGUAGE. 


39 


tal  objects  and  appearances.  Secondly,  there  is  a  de¬ 
partment  of  analogy  or  figure,  where  physical  objects  and 
appearances  are  named  as  images  of  thought  or  spirit, 
and  the  words  get  their  power,  as  words  of  thought, 
through  the  physical  images  received  into  them.  Thus, 
if  I  speak  of  my  pen ,  I  use  a  word  in  the  first  department 
f) f  language,  uttering  a  sound  which  stands  for  the  instru¬ 
ment  with  which  I  write.  But  if  I  speak  of  the  spirit  of 
a  man,  or  the  sincerity  of  a  Christian,  I  use  words  that 
belong  to  the  second  department  of  language,  where  the 
sounds  do  not  stand  for  the  mental  ideas  as  being  names 
directly  applied  to  them ,  but  represent,  rather,  certain 
images  in  the  physical  state,  which  are  the  natural  figures 
or  analogies  of  those  mental  ideas.  How  it  was  neces¬ 
sary,  in  the  genesis  of  language,  that  it  should  fall  into 
this  twofold  distribution,  has  been  shown  already.  The 
man  who  knows  his  tongue  only  by  vernacular  usage,  is 
aware  of  no  such  distribution.  Many,  who  are  considered 
to  be  educated  persons,  and  are  truly  so,  are  but  half 
aware  of  it.  At  least,  they  notice  only  now  and  then, 
when  speaking  of  matters  pertaining  to  thought  and 
spirit,  that  a  word  brought  into  use  has  a  physical  image 
in  it.  For  example,  when  speaking  of  a  good  man’s 
heart ,  they  observe  that  the  word  has  a  physical  image 
connected  with  it,  or  that  it  names  also  a  vital  organ  of 
the  body.  Then  they  either  say,  that  the  word  has  two 
meanings,  a  physical  and  a  spiritual,  not  observing  any 
law  of  order  or  connection  by  which  the  physical  be¬ 
comes  the  basis  or  type  of  the  spiritual ;  or,  they  raise  a 
distinction  between  what  they  call  the  literal  and  figura¬ 
tive  uses  of  the  word.  But  this  distinction  of  literal  and 


40 


APPLICATIONS  OP 


vi 


figurative,  it  does  not  appear  to  be  noticed,  even  by  philo* 
logists,  runs  through  the  very  body  of  the  language  itself, 
making  two  departments ;  one  that  comprises  the  terms 
of  sensation,  and  the  other  the  terms  of  thought.  They 
notice,  in  the  historical  investigation  of  words,  that  they 
are  turning  up  all  the  while,  a  subsoil  of  pin  sical  bases  ; 
and,  though  they  cannot  find  in  every  particular  case, 
the  physical  term  on  which  the  word  is  built,  they  attain 
to  a  conviction  that  every  word  has  a  physical  root,  if 
only  it  could  be  found  ;  and  yet  the  natural  necessity,  that 
all  words  relating  to  thought  and  spirit  should  be  figures, 
and  as  such,  get  their  significance,  they  do  not  state. 
They  still  retain  the  impression  that  some  of  the  terms  ol 
thought  are  literal,  and  some  figurative. 

This  is  the  manner  of  the  theologians.  They  assume 
that  there  is  a  literal  terminology  in  religion  as  well  as  a 
figurative,  (as  doubtless  there  is,  in  reference  to  matters 
of  outward  fact  and  history,  but  nowhere  else,)  and  then 
it  is  only  a  part  of  the  same  mistake  to  accept  words,  not 
as  signs  or  images,  but  as  absolute  measures  and  equiva¬ 
lents  of  truth  ;  and  so  to  run  themselves,  by  their  argu¬ 
mentations,  with  a  perfectly  unsuspecting  confidence, 
into  whatever  conclusions  the  logical  forms  of  the  words 
will  carry  them.  Hence,  in  great  part,  the  distractions, 
the  infinite  multiplications  of  opinion,  the  errors  and 
sects  and  strifes  of  the  Christian  world.  We  can  never 
come  into  a  settled  consent  in  the  truth,  until  we  bettei 
understand  the  nature,  capacities  and  incapacities  of  lan¬ 
guage,  as  a  vehicle  of  truth. 

In  order,  now,  that  I  may  excite  our  younger  theolo¬ 
gians  especially  to  a  new  investigation  of  this  subject 


THE  DOCTRINE. 


41 


as  being  fundamental,  in  fact,  to  the  right  understanding 
of  religious  truth,  I  will  dismiss  the  free  form  of  disser¬ 
tation,  and  set  forth,  under  numerical  indications,  a  seiies 
of  points  or  positions  inviting  each  their  attention,  and 
likely,  though  with  some  modifications,  perhaps,  to  oe 
finally  verified. 

1 .  W ords  of  thought  and  spirit  are  possible  in  language 
only  in  virtue  of  the  fact  that  there  are  forms  provided 
in  the  world  of  sense,  which  are  cognate  to  the  mind, 
and  fitted,  by  reason  of  some  hidden  analogy,  to  represent 
or  express  its  interior  sentiments  and  thoughts. 

2.  Words  of  thought  and  spirit  are,  in  fact,  names  of  such 
forms  or  images  existing  in  the  outward  or  physical  state. 

3.  When  we  investigate  the  relation  of  the  form,  or 
etymological  base,  in  any  word  of  thought  or  spirit,  to 
the  idea  expressed,  we  are  able  to  say  (negatively)  that 
the  idea  or  thought  has  no  such  form,  or  shape,  or  sensi¬ 
ble  quality,  as  the  word  has.  If  I  speak  of  right  ( straight , 
rectus ,)  it  is  not  because  the  internal  law  of  the  con¬ 
science,  named  by  this  word,  has  any  straightness  or  lineal 
quality  whatever.  Or  if  I  speak  of  sin ,  peccatum , 
ajxaprj'a,  where,  in  so  many  languages,  as  I  might  also 
show  in  a  great  variety  of  others,  the  image  at  the  root 
of  the  word  is  one  of  lineal  divarication,  (as  when  an  arrow 
is  shot  at  the  mark,  and  misses  or  turns  aside,)  it  is  not 
because  sin,  as  a  moral  state  of  being,  or  a  moral  act,  has 
any  lineal  form  in  the  mind.  Thoughts,  ideas,  mental 
states,  we  cannot  suppose  have  any  geometric  form,  an} 

color,  dimensions,  or  sensible  qualities  whatever. 

4* 


42 


REASON  OF 


4.  We  can  also  say,  (positively)  in  reference  to  the 
same  subject,  that  there  is  always  some  reason  in  every 
form  or  image  made  use  of,  why  it  should  be  used ;  some 
analogic  property  or  quality  which  we  feel  instinctively, 
but  which  wholly  transcends  speculative  inquiry.  If 
there  is  no  lineal  straightness  in  rectitude,  no  linear  crook¬ 
edness  or  divarication  in  sin,  taken  as  an  internal  state, 
still  it  is  the  instinct  of  our  nature  to  feel  some  sense  of 
correspondence  between  these  images  and  the  states  they 
represent. 

Milton,  I  suppose,  could  not  tell  us  why  he  sets  any 
form  in  connection  with  any  spiritual  thought.  He  could 
only  say  that  he  has  in  him  some  internal  sense  of  con- 
cinnity  which  requires  it.  And  yet,  when  he  speaks  of 
sin,  he  makes  everything  crooked  as  the  word  is,  when 
of  law,  everything  straight  as  rectitude.  Thus  he  writes  : 
“To  make  a  regularity  of  sin  by  law,  either  the  law  must 
straighten  sin  into  no  sin,  or  sin  must  crook  the  law  into 
no  law.”  Something,  doubtless,  may  be  said  which,  in  a 
certain  superficial  and  pathological  sense,  may  be  called 
an  explanation  of  the  uses  of  these  symbols  ;  for  example, 
that  in  sin,  a  man  divaricates  bodily,  or  goes  to  his 
mischief  in  a  manner  that  is  oblique  or  awry ;  and  that, 
when  he  is  in  the  simple  intention  of  duty,  he  lets  his 
“eye  look  right  on,”  and  follows  his  eye.  I  accounted 
for  the  symbols  chosen  to  denote  hope  and  expectation ,  by 
a  similar  reference  to  the  pathology  of  hope  and  expecta¬ 
tion.  But  this,  if  we  do  not  wish  to  deceive  ourselves,  is 
only  a  mediate,  and  not  a  final  explanation.  Still  the 
question  remains,  why  the  form  of  outward  divarication 
has  any  such  original  relation  to  sin  as  to  have  been  rr,ade 


TYPES  OR  FIGURES. 


43 


the  natural  pathological  demonstration  of  it, —  why  a 
crooked  line,  which  is  the  more  graceful  in  itself,  should  not 
have  been  the  natural  instinct,  and  so  the  symbol  of  the 
right,  as  it  now  is  of  the  wrong.  Here  we  come  to  our 
limit.  All  we  can  say  is,  that  by  a  mystery  transcending 
in  any  case  our  comprehension,  the  Divine  Logos,  who  is 
in  the  world,  weaves  into  nature  types  or  images  that 
have  an  inscrutable  relation  to  mind  and  thought.  On 
the  one  hand,  is  form  ;  on  the  other,  is  the  formless.  The 
first  represents,  and  is  somehow  fellow  to,  the  other; 
how,  we  cannot  discover.  And  the  more  we  ponder  this 
mystery,  the  closer  we  bring  it  to  our  understanding,  the 
more  perfectly  inscrutable  will  it  appear.  If  we  say  that 
the  forms  of  the  reason  answer  to  the  forms  of  nature 
and  the  outward  life,  that  is  true ;  but  then  there  are  no 
.orms  in  the  reason,  save  by  a  figure  of  speech,  and  the 
difficulty  still  remains. 

5.  There  are  no  words,  in  the  physical  department  of 
language,  that  are  exact  representatives  of  particular 
physical  things.  For  whether  we  take  the  theory  of  the 
Nominalists  or  the  Realists,  the  words  are,  in  fact,  and 
practically,  names  only  of  genera,  not  of  individuals  or 
species.  To  be  even  still  more  exact,  they  represent 
only  certain  sensations  of  sight,  touch,  taste,  smell,  hear¬ 
ing — one  or  all.  Hence  the  opportunity  in  language, 
for  endless  mistakes  and  false  reasonings,  in  reference  to 
matters  purely  physical.  This  subject  was  labored  some 
years  ago  with  much  acuteness  and  industry,  by  one  of 
our  countrymen,  Mr.  Johnson,  in  a  ‘Treatise  on  Lan 
guage,  oi  the  Relations  of  Words  tc  Things/  The  latter 


44 


WORDS  OF  THOUGHT 


part  of  his  title,  however,  is  all  that  is  justified  ;  for  to  lan 
guage  in  its  more  comprehensive  sense,  as  a  vehicle  ol 
spirit,  thought,  sentiment,  he  appears  to  have  scarcely 
directed  his  inquiries. 

6.  It  follows,  that  as  physical  terms  are  never  exact, 
being  only  names  of  genera,  much  less  have  we  any 
terms  in  the  spiritual  department  of  language  that  are 

*> 

exact  representatives  of  thought.  For,  first,  the  word 
here  used  will  be  the  name  only  of  a  genus  of  physical 
images.  Then,  secondly,  it  will  have  been  applied  over  to 
signify  a  genus  of  thoughts  or  sentiments.  And  now, 
thirdly,  in  a  particular  case,  it  is  drawn  out  to  signify  a 
specific  thought  or  sentiment  which,  of  course,  will  have 
qualities  or  incidents  peculiar  to  itself.  What,  now,  can 
steer  a  word  through  so  many  ambiguities  and  complica¬ 
tions,  and  give  it  an  exact  and  determinate  meaning  in 
the  particular  use  it  is  applied  to  serve  ?  Suppose, 
for  example,  one  desires  to  speak  of  the  bitterness  dis¬ 
played  by  another,  on  some  given  occasion.  In  the  first 
place,  this  word  bitterness ,  taken  physically,  describes 
not  a  particular  sensation  common  to  all  men,  but  a 
genus  of  sensations ;  and  as  some  persons  have  even  a 
taste  for  bitter  things,  it  is  impossible  that  the  word,  taken 
physically,  should  not  have  an  endless  variety  of  signifi¬ 
cations,  ranging  between  disgust  and  a  positive  relish  of 
pleasure.  If,  now,  it  be  taken  as  the  base  or  type  of  an 
intellectual  word,  it  will  carry  with  it,  of  necessity,  as 
great  a  variety  of  associations ;  associations  so  unlike, 
that  it  will  be  impossible  to  clothe  it  with  the  same  pre¬ 
cise  import,  as  a  word  of  sentiment.  Then,  secondly 


INDETERMINATE. 


45 


men  are  so  different,  even  good  and  true  men,  in  1  heir 
personal  temperament,  their  modes  of  feeling,  reasoning 
and  judging,  that  moral  bitterness,  in  its  generic  sense, 
will  not  be  a  state  or  exercise  of  the  same  precise  quality 
in  their  minds.  Some  persons  will  take  as  bitterness  in 
general,  what  others  will  only  look  upon  as  faithfulness, 
or  just  indignation.  And,  then,  thirdly,  in  the  particular 
case  to  which  the  word  is  to  be  applied,  different  views 
and  judgments  will  be  formed  of  the  man,  his  provocations, 
circumstances,  duties,  and  the  real  import  of  his  words 
and  actions.  Accordingly,  as  one  declares  that  he  was 
bitter,  another  will  receive  the  declaration  as  no  better 
than  a  real  slander.  And  so  it  must  of  necessity  be.  It 
is  impossible  so  to  settle  the  meaning  of  this  word  bitter 
ness,  as  to  produce  any  exact  unity  of  apprehension 
under  it.  And  the  same  is  true  of  the  great  mass  of 
words  employed  in  moral  and  spiritual  uses, — such  as 
love,  gentleness,  contentment,  patience,  wisdom,  justice, 
order,  pride,  charity.  We  think  we  have  the  same  ideas 
in  them,  or  rather,  (which  is  more  likely,)  we  think 
nothing  about  it ;  but  we  find  continually  that,  when  we 
come  to  particular  uses,  we  fall  into  disagreements,  often 
into  protracted  and  serious  controversies ;  and  whether 
it.  be  said  that  the  controversy  is  about  words  or  things, 
it  is  always  a  controversy  about  the  real  applicability  of 
words. 

What,  then,  it  may  be  asked,  is  the  real  and  legitimate 
use  of  words,  when  applied  to  moral  subjects  ?  for  we 
cannot  dispense  with  them,  and  it  is  uncomfortable  to 
hold  them  in  universal  scepticism,  as  being  only  instru¬ 
ments  of  error.  Words,  then,  I  answer,  are  legitimately 

\y 


46 


WORD  S  OF  T  II  O  U  G  H  T 


used  as  the  signs  of  thoughts  to  be  expressed.  They  lo 
not  literally  convey,  or  pass  over  a  thought  out  of  one 
mind  into  another,  as  we  commonly  speak  of  doing. 
The)  are  only  hints,  or  images,  held  up  before  the  mind 
of  another,  to  put  him  on  generating  or  reproducing  the 
same  thought ;  which  he  can  do  only  as  he  has  the  same 
personal  contents,  or  the  generative  power  out  of  which 
to  bring  the  thought  required.  Hence,  there  will  be 
different  measures  of  understanding  or  misunderstanding, 
according  to  the  capacity  or  incapacity,  the  ingenuous¬ 
ness  or  moral  obliquity  of  the  receiving  party — even  if 
the  communicating  party  offers  only  truth,  in  the  best 
and  freshest  forms  of  expression  the  language  provides. 

There  is  only  a  single  class  of  intellectual  words  that 
can  be  said  to  have  a  perfectly  determinate  significance, 
viz.,  those  which  relate  to  what  are  called  necessary 
ideas.  They  are  such  as  time,  space,  cause,  truth,  right, 
arithmetical  numbers,  and  geometrical  figures.  Here  the 
names  applied,  are  settled  into  a  perfectly  determinate 
meaning,  not  by  any  peculiar  virtue  in  them ,  but  by 
reason  of  the  absolute  exactness  of  the  ideas  themselves. 
Time  cannot  be  anything  more  or  less  than  time;  truth 
cannot,  in  its  idea,  be  anything  different  from  truth ;  the 
numerals  suffer  no  ambiguity  of  count  or  measure ;  a 
circle  must  be  a  circle  ;  a  square,  a  square.  As  far  as 
language,  therefore,  has  to  do  with  these,  it  is  a  perfectly 
exact  algebra  of  thought,  but  no  farther. 

It  will,  perhaps,  be  imagined  by  some,  indeed,  it  is  an 
assumption  continually  made,  that  words  of  thought, 
though  based  on  mere  figures  or  analogies  in  their 
original  adoptior,  gradually  lose  their  indeterminate 


INDETERMINATE. 


47 


character,  and  settle  down  under  the  law  of  use,  into  a 
sense  so  perfectly  unambiguous,  that  they  are  to  be 
regarded  as  literal  names,  and  real  equivalents  of  the 
thoughts  they  signify.  There  could  not  be  a  greater 
mistake.  For,  though  the  original  type,  or  histoi  c  tase 
of  the  word  may  pass  out  of  view,  so  that  nothing  physi¬ 
cal  or  figurative  is  any  longer  suggested  by  it,  still  it  will 
be  impossible  that  mere  use  should  have  given  it  an  exact 
meaning,  or  made  it  the  literal  name  of  any  moral  or 
ntellectual  state.  The  word  sin  is  of  this  description, 
and  most  persons  seem  to  imagine  that  it  names  a  given 
act  or  state,  about  which  there  is  no  diversity  of  under¬ 
standing.  Contrary  to  this,  no  two  minds  ever  had  the 
same  impression  of  it.  The  whole  personal  history  of 
every  man,  his  acts,  temptations,  wants,  and  repentances  ; 
his  opinions  of  God,  of  law,  and  of  personal  freedom  ;  his 
theory  of  virtue,  his  decisions  of  the  question,  whether 
sin  is  an  act,  or  a  state ;  of  the  will,  or  of  the  neart :  in 
fact,  his  whole  theology  and  life  will  enter  into  his 
impression  of  this  word  sin,  to  change  the  quality,  and 
modify  the  relations  of  that  which  it  signifies.  It  will 
also  be  found,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  that  the  interminable 
disputes  of  the  theologians  on  this  particular  subject, 
originate  in  fundamental  differences  of  view  concerning 
the  nature  of  sin,  and  are  themselves  incontestible  proofs 
hat,  simple  as  the  word  is,  and  on  the  lips  of  every  body, 
xas  we  know  it  to  be)  there  is  yet  no  virtual  agreement  of 
meaning  connected  with  the  word.  The  same,  as  just 
now  intimated,  is  true  of  hope,  fear,  love ,  and  o  ther  like 
familiar  terms,  which  we  fancy  have  a  meaning  so  well 
settled.  They  have  a  dictionary  meaning  that  is  settled ; 


48 


A  FALSE  ELEMENT 


but  yet,  hope,  fear,  love,  is  to  every  man  what  his  own 
life-experience,  and  his  theories,  and  mental  struggles 
have  made  it,  and  he  sees  it,  of  necessity,  under  a  color 
quite  peculiar  to  himself ;  so  peculiar,  that  he  will  even 
advance  concerning  it,  what  another  cannot  find  the 
truth  of,  or  receive.  And  this  is  true  of  all  the  intellec¬ 
tual  terms  in  language,  with  the  exception  of  a  class  just 
named,  relating  to  necessary  and  absolute  truths.  Be¬ 
sides  these,  there  is  no  word  of  thought,  or  spirit,  that 
exactly  measures  its  ideas,  or  does  any  thing  more  than 
offer  some  proximate  notion,  or  shadow  of  the  thought 
intended. 

What  I  have  here  advanced,  is  confirmed  by  a  very 
judicious  remark  of  Whately,  who  says, — “  It  is  worth 
observing,  that  the  words,  whose  ambiguity  is  most 
frequently  overlooked,  and  is  productive  of  the  greatest 
amount  of  confusion  of  thought  and  fallacy,  are  among 
the  commonest ,  and  are  those  whose  meaning  the  gene¬ 
rality  consider  there  is  least  room  to  doubt.  Familiar 
acquaintance  is  perpetually  mistaken  for  accurate  know¬ 
ledge.” 

7.  Words  of  thought  or  spirit  are  not  only  inexact  in 
their  significance,  never  measuring  the  truth  or  giving  its 
precise  equivalent,  but  they  always  affirm  something 
which  is  false,  or  contrary  to  the  truth  intended.  They 
impute  form  to  that  which  really  is  out  of  form.  They 
are  related  to  the  truth,  only  as  form  to  spirit — earthen 
/  vessels  in  wnich  the  truth  is  borne,  yet  always  offering 
/  their  mere  pottery  as  being  the  truth  itself.  Bunyan 


IN  WORDS  OF  THOUGHT. 


49 


beautifully  represents  their  insufficiency  and  earthinesa 
when  he  says — ■ 

“  My  dark  and  cloudy  words,  they  do  but  hold 
The  truth,  as  cabinets  inclose  the  gold.” 

— only  it  needs  to  be  added,  that  they  palm  off  upon  us, 
too  often,  their  “dark  and  cloudy”  qualities  as  belonging 
inherently  to  the  golden  truths  they  are  used  to  express. 
Therefore,  we  need  always  to  have  it  in  mind,  or  in 
present  recollection,  that  they  are  but  signs,  in  fact,  or 
images  of  that  which  has  no  shape  or  sensible  quality 
whatever;  a  kind  of  painting,  in  which  the  speaker,  or 
the  writer,  leads  on  through  a  gallery  of  pictures  or 
forms,  while  we  attend  him,  catching  at  the  thoughts 
suggested  by  his  forms.  In  one  view,  they  are  all 
false  ;  for  there  are  no  shapes  in  the  truths  they  represent, 
and  therefore  we  are  to  separate  continually,  and  by  a 
most  delicate  process  of  art,  between  the  husks  of  the 
forms  and  the  pure  truths  of  thought  presented  in  them. 
We  do  this  insensibly,  to  a  certain  extent,  and  yet  we  do 
it  imperfectly,  often.  A  very  great  share  of  our  theologi¬ 
cal  questions,  or  disputes,  originate  in  the  incapacity  of 
the  parties  to  separate  truths  from  their  forms,  or  to  see 
now  the  same  essential  truth  may  clothe  itself  under 
forms  that  are  repugnant.  There  wants  to  be  a  large 
digestion,  so  to  speak,  of  form  in  the  teacher  of  theology 
or  mental  philosophy,  that  he  may  always  be  aware  how 
the  mind  and  truth,  obliged  to  clothe  themselves  under  the 
laws  of  space  and  sensation,  are  taking,  continually,  new 
shapes  or  dresses — coming  forth  poetically,  mystically, 
allegorically,  dialectically,  fluxing  through  definitions, 


50 


A  FALSE  ELEMENT 


symbols,  changes  of  subject  and  object,  yet  remaining 
still  the  same  ;  for  if  he  is  wanting  in  this,  if  he  is  a  mere 
logician,  fastening  on  a  word  as  the  sole  expression  and 
exact  equivalent  of  a  truth,  to  go  on  spinning  his  deduc¬ 
tions  out  of  the  form  of  the  word,  (which  yet  have  nothing 
to  do  with  the  idea,)  then  he  becomes  an  opinionist  only, 
quarreling,  as  for  truth  itself,  with  all  who  chance  to  go 
out  of  his  word ;  and,  since  words  are  given,  not  to 
imprison  souls,  but  to  express  them,  the  variations  con¬ 
tinually  indulged  by  others  are  sure  to  render  him  as 
miserable  in  his  anxieties,  as  he  is  meagre  in  his  contents, 
and  busy  in  his  quarrels. 

But  it  will  be  observed,  that  most  men  are  wholly 
unacquainted  with  the  etymologies  or  forms  of  their 
words ;  and,  of  those  who  are  not,  that  very  few  have 
really  any  mental  reference  to  them,  in  their  choice  or 
use  of  terms.  How,  then,  is  it  supposable,  when  they 
do  not  even  go  behind  the  intellectual  signification  of  the 
words  enough  to  have  any  sense,  at  all,  of  their  forms, 
that  the  forms  are  yet  conveying  to  the  mind  mistaken 
or  false  impressions  that  belong  to  themselves,  in  distinc¬ 
tion  from  the  truths  they  represent  ?  They  do  it,  1 
answer,  with  the  greater  certainty,  because  they  do  it  in 
a  manner  so  subtle,  as  not  to  awaken  suspicion  ;  for  there 
is  a  latent  presence  of  the  forms  of  words,  which  is  not 
»ess  real  because  it  is  less  palpable.  It  is  even  wonder¬ 
ful  to  observe,  with  what  pertinacity  the  original  form  of 
a  word  will  stay  by  it,  unobserved  or  hidden  from  ordi¬ 
nary  inspection,  to  guard  its  uses,  and  preside  over  its 
fortunes.  It  will  even  be  present,  unawares,  in  sufficient 
power  to  control  the  meanings  and  applications  of  those 
nAver  heard  of  a  type,  or  etymology,  in  then  lives 


IN  WORDS  OF  THOUGHT. 


51 


The  Latin  word  gressus ,  for  example,  is  one  tnat 
originally  describes  the  measured  tread  of  dignity,  in 
distinction  from  the  trudge  of  a  clown,  or  footpad. 
Hence  the  word  congress ,  can  never  after,  even  at  the 
distance  of  thousands  of  years,  be  applied  to  the  meeting 
or  coming  together  of  outlaws,  jockeys,  or  low  persons  of 
any  description.  It  can  only  be  used  to  denote  assem¬ 
blages  of  grave  and  elevated  personages,  such  as  coun¬ 
cillors,  men  of  science,  ambassadors,  potentates.  The 
original  type  of  the  word  gressus,  which  denotes  only  a 
matter  as  evanescent  as  one  form  of  gait  or  carriage,  in 
distinction  from  another,  stays  by,  causing  it,  in  all  future 
uses,  to  stand  upon  its  dignity,  and  assisting  it,  in  spite  of 
all  revolutions  and  democratic  levelings,  to  maintain  its 
ancient  aristocracy.  And  it  controls  the  speech  of  the 
ignorant  not  the  less  certainly,  because  it  is  itself 
unknown  to  them.  On  the  contrary,  its  sway  is  even  the 
more  absolute,  that  it  governs  by  a  latent  presence. 

So,  also,  if  a  reader  who  is  wholly  ignorant  of  the 
Latin  type  of  the  word  humility ,  [ground-ness]  were  to 
faf  upon  the  incongruous  jumbled  line  of  Young — 

“  Zeal  and  humility,  her  wings  to  heaven,” 

he  would  almost  certainly  be  conscious  of  seme  defect,  or 
fault  of  concinnity  in  the  language.  Not  that  humility  has 
in  itself  any  low,  groundling  quality  ;  for  there  is  no  virtue 
more  .ruly  elevated  in  its  own  inherent  properties.  The 
only  reason  why  there  would  seem  to  him  to  be  a  want 
of  harmony  in  the  expression,  is,  that  there  is  a  latent 
quality  of  form  associated  with  the  wore ,  even  when  a 
classic  education  has  not  revealed  it  to  his  view.  For 


52 


A  FAI.SE  element 


the  same  reason,  I  suppose,  that  many  persons  of  only  a 
common  education,  would  be  likely  to  have  some  sense 
of  discoi  i  in  the  expression,  “  I  prefer  [set  before]  being 
behind/'  It  might  not  seem  to  be  a  decided  bull  in 
rhetoric,  they  might  even  use  the  expression,  and  yet, 
for  some  reason  or  other,  they  would  hardly  be  able  to 
like  it — really  for  the  reason  that  there  is  a  latent  power 
of  form  present  in  the  word  prefer ,  which  refuses  assent 
to  the  marriage. 

In  the  same  way,  though  unconsciously  to  themselves, 
there  is  a  certain  power  of  form,  I  apprehend,  associated 
or  intermixed  with  the  meanings  of  their  words  generally. 
When  they  use  the  words  ap-prehend ,  com-prehend ,  op¬ 
posite,  di-vulge,  amb-ition ,  reflection,  though  the  original 
images  or  types,  are  historically  unknown  to  them,  the 
meanings  do  yet  lie  in  their  minds,  not  as  formless,  but 
in  forms  or  conceptions.  Hence,  in  fact,  the  word  con¬ 
ception  (con-capio ;)  because  we  take  up,  ever,  with  our 
thought,  some  image  whereby  to  represent  it  to  ourselves  ; 
for,  in  our  thinking  processes,  or,  in  what  the  old  writers 
call  our  discourse  of  reason,  we  get  on  with  our  activity 
only  by  the  interior  handling  of  these  forms  or  images 
Thinking,  in  fact,  is  nothing  but  the  handling  of  thoughts 
by  their  forms.  And  so  necessary  is  this,  that,  if  we 
make  use  of  a  word  whose  original  form  is  lost  or  un¬ 
known,  we  shall  be  found,  in  every  case,  to  give  the 
word,  instinctively,  an  outward  representation  ourselves  : 
that  is,  wre  shall  image  it,  or  give  a  form  to  the  thought,  in 
order  to  bring  it  into  mental  contemplation,  or  under  the 
discourse  of  the  mind. 

Therefore,  we  may  lay  it  down  as  a  truth,  that  the 


[  IV  WORDS  OF  THOUGH  T  . 


53 


forms  of  words  are  always  present,  either  as  palpable  or 
'  latent  powers,  In  every  case,  they  are  conceptions  of 
the  truths  signified,  and  not  naked  vocal  names  of  those 
truths.  Being  really  images,  therefore,  of  that  which  has 
no  sensible  quality,  they  do  always  impute  or  associate 
something  which  does  not  belong  to  the  truth  or  thought 
expressed ;  viz.,  form.  On  which  account,  the  greatest 
caution  is  needed,  that,  while  we  use  them,  confidingly, 
as  vehicles,  we  never  allow  them  to  impose  upon  us  any¬ 
thing  of  their  own. 

8.  But  if  we  are  liable  thus  to  be  carried  away  by 
the  forms  contained  in  our  words,  into  conclusions  or 
impressions  that  do  not  belong  to  the  truths  they  are  used 
to  signify,  we  are  also  to  peruse  their  forms  with  great 
industry,  as  being,  at  the  same  time,  a  very  important 
key  to  their  meaning.  The  original  type  or  etymology 
of  words  is  a  most  fruitful  study.  Even  when  they  pass 
into  meanings  that  seem  to  be  contrary  one  to  another, 
it  will  yet  be  found,  in  almost  every  case,  that  the  repug¬ 
nant  meanings  are  natural  growths,  so  to  speak,  of  the 
same  vital  root ;  as  some  kinds  of  trees  are  seen  to  throw 
out  leaves  having  several  different  shapes.  The  ety¬ 
mologists  have  been  hard  pressed,  often,  by  ridicule, 
and  it  is  not  to  be  denied  that  they  have  sometimes  pro¬ 
duced  fancies  in  place  of  facts.  As  little  is  it  to  be  de¬ 
nied  that  words  do,  now  and  then,  present  no  aspect  of 
agreement  in  their  senses,  with  the  types  out  of  which 
they  spring.  They  appear  to  have  suffered  some  kind  of 
violence — to  have  fallen  among  thieves,  and  been  left, 
half  dead  from  the  injury  they  have  sufferer  j.  And  yet 
5* 


54 


ETYMOLOGIES 


there  is  a  wonderful  light  shed  upon  words,  in  most  cases, 
by  the  simple  opening  of  their  etymologies.  Distinctions 
are  very  often  drawn  at  a  stroke,  in  this  way,  which  whole 
chapters  of  dissertation  would  not  exhibit  as  well.  Some¬ 
times  a  dark  subject  is  made  luminous,  at  once,  by  the? 
simple  reference  to  an  etymology ;  and  then  we  are  even 
amazed  to  see  what  depths  of  wisdom,  or  spiritual  insight, 
have  been  hid,  as  it  were,  in  our  language,  even  from 
ourselves. 

The  remark  of  Whately,  touching  this  point,  while  it 
indicates  a  proper  caution  in  accepting  the  light  of  ety¬ 
mologies,  is  yet  far  too  negative  to  be  justified  even  by 
his  own  illustration.  He  says  it  is  worth  observing,  as  a 
striking  instance  of  the  little  reliance  to  be  placed  on 
etymology,  as  a  guide  to  the  meaning  of  a  word,  that 
“  hypostasis ,  substantia ,  and  understanding ,  so  widely  dif¬ 
ferent  in  their  sense,  correspond  in  their  etymology.” 
But,  admitting  the  difference  of  meaning,  the  Greek  ele¬ 
ment  (grugig)  stasis,  the  Latin  stantia  and  the  English 
standing,  being  all  different  inflections  in  the  grammar  of 
the  several  tongues,  are  really  not  grammatical  equiva¬ 
lents,  and,  therefore,  have  not  the  same  directing  forces, 
as  types  of  thought.  Besides,  it  is  not  true  that  the  ety¬ 
mology  of  these  words  is  no  guide  to  their  meaning.  On 
the  contrary,  all  their  meanings,  however  diverse,  stand 
in  exact  harmony  with  their  etymologies,  and  no  one  of 
t  iem  could  be  sufficiently  understood,  without  reference 
to  its  root  or  type.  The  meanings,  in  fact,  of  these  three 
words  are  not  as  wide  apart  as  the  meanings  we  find 
under  the  same  word,  in  our  own  tongue,  and  yet,  in  the 
latter  case,  every  one  of  the  meanings  will  be  seen  tc 


TO  BE  STUDIED 


55 


have  a  clear  historic  reference  to  its  radical  type,  and  to 
grow  out  from  it,  by  a  perfectly  natural  process. 

9.  Since  all  words,  but  such  as  relate  to  necessary 
truths,  are  inexact  representations  of  thought,  mere  types 
or  analogies,  or,  where  the  types  are  lost  beyond  recovery, 
only  proximate  expressions  of  the  thoughts  named ;  it 
follows  that  language  will  be  ever  trying  to  mend  its  own 
deficiencies,  by  multiplying  its  forms  of  representation. 
As,  too,  the  words  made  use  of  generally  carry  something 
false  with  them,  as  well  as  something  true,  associating 
form  with  the  truths  represented,  when  really  there  is 
no  form ;  it  will  also  be  necessary,  on  this  account,  to 
multiply  words  or  figures,  and  thus  to  present  the  subject 
on  opposite  sides  or  many  sides.  Thus,  as  form  battles 
form,  and  one  form  neutralizes  another,  all  the  insuffi¬ 
ciencies  of  words  are  filled  out,  the  contrarieties  liqui¬ 
dated,  and  the  mind  settles  into  a  full  and  just  apprehen¬ 
sion  of  the  pure  spiritual  truth.  Accordingly  we  never 
come  so  near  to  a  truly  well  rounded  view  of  any  truth, 
as  when  it  is  offered  paradoxically ;  that  is,  under  con¬ 
tradictions  ;  that  is,  under  two  or  more  dictions,  which, 
taken  as  dictions,  are  contrary  one  to  the  other. 

Hence  the  marvelous  vivacity  and  power  of  that 
famous  representation  of  Pascal  :  “  What  a  chimera, 

then,  is  man !  What  a  novelty !  What  a  chaos  !  What 
a  subject  of  contradiction !  A  judge  of  every  thing,  and 
yet  a  feeble  worm  of  the  earth ;  the  depositary  of  truth, 
and  yet  a  mere  heap  of  uncertainty ;  the  glory  and  the 
outcast  of  the  universe.  If  he  boasts,  I  humble  him ;  ii 
he  humbles  himself,  I  boast  of  him ;  and  always  contra 


56 


OF  POSING  WORDS 


diet  him,  till  he  is  brought  to  comprehend  that  he  is  an 
incomprehensible  monster.” 

Scarcely  inferior  in  vivacity  and  power  is  the  familiar 
passage  of  Paul ; — “  as  deceivers,  and  yet  true  ;  as 
unknown,  and  yet  well  known ;  as  dying,  and  behold,  we 
live ;  as  chastened,  and  not  killed  ;  as  sorrowful,  yet 
always  rejoicing  ;  as  poor,  yet  making  many  rich ;  as 
having  nothing,  yet  possessing  all  things.” 

So,  also,  it  will  be  found,  that  the  poets  often  express 
their  most  inexpressible,  or  evanescent  thoughts,  by  means 
of  repugnant  or  somewhat  paradoxical  epithets ;  as,  for 
example,  Coleridge,  when  he  says, — • 

“  The  stilly  murmur  of  the  distant  sea 
Tells  us  of  silence.” 

Precisely  here,  too,  I  suppose,  we  come  upon  what  is 
really  the  true  conception  of  the  Incarnation  and  the 
?  Trinity.  These  great  Christian  mysteries  or  paradoxes, 
come  to  pass  under  the  same  conditions  or  laws  which 

pertain  to  language.  All  words  are,  in  fact,  only  incar- 

* 

nations,  or  insensings  of  thought.  If  we  investigate  the 
relations  of  their  forms  to  the  truths  signified,  we  have 
the  same  mystery  before  us ;  if  we  set  the  different,  but 
related  forms  in  comparison,  we  have  the  same  aspect  of 
repugnance  or  inconsistency.  And  then  we  have  only 
to  use  the  repugnant  forms  as  vehicles  of  pure  thought, 
dismissing  the  contradictory  matter  of  the  forms,  and 
beth  words  and  the  Word  are  understood  without  dis¬ 
traction, — all  by  the  same  process. 

Probably,  the  most  contradictory  book  in  the  world  is 
the  Gospel  of  John ;  and  that,  for  the  very  reason  that  it 


NECESSARY. 


5: 


contains  more  and  loftier  truths  than  any  other.  No 
good  writer,  who  is  occupied  in  simply  expressing  truth, 
is  ever  afraid  of  inconsistencies  or  self-contradictions  in 
his  language.  It  is  nothing  to  him  that  a  quirk  of  logic 
can  bring  him  into  absurdity.  If  at  any  time  he  offers 
definitions,  it  is  not  to  get  a  footing  for  the  play  of  his 
logic,  but  it  is  simply  as  multiplying  forms  or  figures 
of  that  which  he  seeks  to  communicate — just  as  one 
will  take  his  friend  to  different  points  of  a  landscape,  and 
show  him  cross  views,  in  order  that  he  may  get  a  perfect 
conception  of  the  outline.  Having  nothing  but  words  in 
which  to  give  definitions,  he  understands  the  impossibility 
of  definitions  as  determinate  measures  of  thought,  and 
gives  them  only  as  being  other  forms  of  the  truth  in 
question,  by  aid  of  which  it  may  be  more  adequately 
conceived.  On  the  other  hand,  a  writer  without  either 
truth  or  genius,  a  mere  prosaic  and  literal  wordsman, 
is  just  the  man  to  magnify  definitions.  He  has  never 
a  doubt  of  their  possibility.  He  lays  them  down  as 
absolute  measures,  then  draws  along  his  deductions,  with 
cautious  consistency,  and  works  out,  thus,  what  he  consi¬ 
ders  to  be  the  exact  infallible  truth.  But  his  definitions  will 
be  found  to  hang  of  necessity,  on  some  word  or  symbol, 
that  symbol  to  have  drawn  every  thing  to  itself,  or  into  its 
own  form,  and  then,  when  his  work  is  done,  it  will  be  both 
consistent  and  false, — false,  because  of  its  consistency 

10.  It  is  part  of  the  same  view,  that  logic  itself  is 
a  defective,  and  often  deceitful  instrument.  I  speak  not 
here  of  logic  as  a  science,  but  of  that  deductive,  proving., 
spinning  method  of  practical  investigation,  co  imonly 


58 


THE  L  O  G  I  J  A  L  METHOD 


denoted  by  the  term  logical.  It  is  very  obvious,  that  n® 
turn  of  logical  deduction  can  prove  anything,  by  itself, 
not  previously  known  by  inspection  or  insight.  And 
yet,  there  is  always  a  busy-minded  class  of  sophists  or 
speculators,  who,  having  neither  a  large  observation,  nor 
a  power  of  poetic  insight,  occupy  themselves  as  workers 
in  words  and  propositions,  managing  to  persuade  them¬ 
selves  and  others  that  they  are  great  investigators,  and 
even  discoverers  of  truth.  It  being  generally  known  that 
John,  James,  and  Peter,  are  men,  they  advance,  by  a 
strict  logical  process,  to  the  conclusion  that  Peter  is 
a  man  ! — in  which  they  seem  to  themselves,  and,  possibly, 
to  some  others,  to  have  added  a  valuable  contribution  to 
the  stock  of  human  knowledge.  They  do  not  see  that 
their  premise  contains  their  conclusion,  and  somewhat 
more,  and  that  the  only  real  talent  of  investigation  lies 
in  a  power  of  insight  by  which  premises  are  seen  or 
ascertained.  They  impose  upon  themselves,  too,  the 
more  readily,  because  it  is  so  generally  true,  that  their 
conclusion  is  not  contained  in  their  premise  ;  hence,  they 
seem  to  themselves  to  be  really  multiplying  truths  with 
great  facility  and  rapidity, — only  it  happens,  that,  inas¬ 
much  as  their  conclusions  were  not  in  their  premises,  they 
are  false !  And  so  it  turns  out  that  these  great  investiga¬ 
tors  and  provers,  the  men  who  think  that  nothing  is  really 
established  until  it  has  been  proved,  that  is,  deduced  from 
something  else,  are  generally  the  worst  propagators  cl 
falsity  in  the  world.  If  they  had  Julius  Caesar’s  gram¬ 
mar,  it  would  be  a  sad  abridgment  of  their  discoveries, 
though  not  any  very  great  subtraction  from  the  world’s 
knowledge.  “I  ha^ve  formed  in  my  thoughts,”  he  says; 


DECEITFUL. 


59 


“  a  certain  grammar,  not  upon  any  analogy  wh  ich  words 
bear  to  each  other,  but  such  as  should  diligently  examine 
the  analogy  or  relation  betwixt  words  and  thir  gs.” 

It  seems  to  be  supposed,  or  rather  assumed,  by  the 
class  of  investigators  commonly  called  logical,  that  after 
the  subject  matter  of  truth  has  been  gotten  into  proposi¬ 
tions,  and  cleared,  perhaps,  by  definitions,  the  faculty  of 
intuition,  or  insight,  may  be  suspended,  and  we  may  go 
on  safely,  to  reason  upon  the  forms  ot  the  words  them¬ 
selves,  or  the  “analogy  the  words  bear  to  each  other.” 
And  so,  by  the  mere  handling  of  words  and  propositions, 
they  undertake  to  evolve,  or,  as  they  commonly  speak,  to 
prove  important  truths.  They  reason,  not  by  or  through 
formulas,  but  upon  them.  After  the  formulas  are  got 
ready,  they  shut  their  eyes  to  all  interior  inspection 
of  their  terms,  as  in  algebra,  and  commit  themselves 
to  the  mere  grammatic  laws  or  predications  of  theii 
words — expecting,  under  these,  by  inversion,  evolution, 
equation,  reductio  ad  absurdum ,  and  the  like,  to  work  out 
important  results.  And  this  is  popularly  called  reasoning. 
They  do  not  seem  to  be  aware  that  this  grammatic,  oi 
constructive  method,  while  it  is  natural  as  language 
itself,  having  its  forms  in  what  I  have  called  the  gram¬ 
mar  of  the  soul  and  of  the  creation,  is  yet  analogical  only 
to  truth  and  spirit — a  warp  that  is  furnished  out  of  form 
and  sense,  for  the  connecting  into  speech  of  symbols  or 
types  that  lie  in  form  and  sense ;  on  which  account, 
propositions  are  called  formulas,  or  little  forms.  Oi  we 
may  represent  the  constructive  method  of  logic  and 
gr  ammar  as  the  iron  track  of  speech,  along  which  the 
separate  cars  of  words,  connected  by  iron  copulas,  are 


60 


THE  LOGICAL  METHOD 


drawn  out  into  regular  trains,  and  determinate  courses  oi 
motion ;  which  iron  track  and  copulas,  however,  we  are 
not  to  fancy,  are  at  all  more  intellectual,  closer  to  the 
truth  of  reason,  or  less  analogical  than  the  separate  cars 
themselves.  And,  therefore,  whatever  is  wrought  out 
by  the  combination  of  formulas,  (of  course  I  do  not 
question  the  syllogism  which  really  works  out  nothing,) 
having  only  a  certain  analogical  or  tropical  force,  must 
be  received  by  insight,  as  all  symbols  are,  not  as  any 
absolute  conclusion,  or  sentence  of  reason. 

In  the  pure  algebraic  process,  the  result  is  wholly 
different ;  because  the  terms  all  stand  for  exact  quanti¬ 
ties,  and  the  predicates  of  addition,  subtraction,  multipli¬ 
cation,  division,  involution,  evolution,  inversion,  equation, 
and  the  like,  are  all  absolute  ;  so  that  if  the  worker  goes 
on  to  his  life’s  end,  producing  his  changes  of  formula,  he 
will  never  come  into  one  that  is  not  true. 

But  suppose  the  algebraist  had  no  fixed  quantities  out 
of  which  to  make  his  formulas ;  that  his  terms  were  only 
tropes  for  certain  ideas  that  have  no  definite  measure, 
affirming,  of  course,  something  not  true,  as  well  as  some¬ 
thing  true ;  suppose  that  definitions  were  impossible, 
save  that  one  trope  may  sometimes  help  out  another, 
and  that  paradoxes  are  quite  as  often  needed  to  help  out 
the  infirmity,  or  displace  the  one-sidedness  of  definition  s. 
Suppose  that  all  his  connective  signs,  his  equations,  his 
evolutions  of  formula,  were  indeterminate,  and  his  pro¬ 
cess  never  true,  save  in  a  certain  analogical  and  poetic 
sense — what  figure,  in  such  a  case,  would  he  make  with 
his  algebraic  process  ?  A  glance  in  this  direction  suffices 
to  show  that  the  only  real  and  true  reasoning,  on  moral 


DECEITFUL. 


61 


subjects,  ts  that  which  never  embarks  on  words  and  pro¬ 
positions,  but  whicn  holds  a  constant  insight  of  all  terms 
and  cons*  ructions — “  diligently  examining  the  analogy  oi 
relation  betwixt  words  and  things.” 

Observe,  in  a  single  proposition — the  simplest  affirma¬ 
tion  that  can  be  invented,  I  might  almost  say,  pertaining 
to  the  intellectual  life — how  indefinite  any  mere  formula 
must  be.  I  assert  that  “man  thinks Here  the  sub¬ 
ject  is  man,  of  whom  is  predicated  some  causative  agency, 
and  some  form  of  result.  As  regards  the  agency,  it  may 
be  understood  (1.)  that  the  man  thinks  under  a  law  of 
mechanical  necessity,  as  a  machine  works  ;  or  (2.)  that 
he  thinks  under  a  law  of  plastic  self-determinating  neces¬ 
sity,  as  a  tree  grows ;  or  (3.)  that  he  thinks  under  a  law 
of  mental  suggestion,  which  he  can  only  interrupt  by  his 
will ;  or  (4.)  that  he  wills  to  think  ;  or  (5.)  that  he  thinks 
spontaneously.  And  then  as  to  the  product,  thought , 
nothing  is  so  difficult  as  to  settle  any  definite  conception 
of  that ;  but  we  will  suppose  only  five  more  ambiguities 
here — combining  which,  in  as  many  pairs  as  they  will 
make,  with  the  five  preceding,  we  have  twenty-five  dis¬ 
tinct  meanings.  If,  now,  going  back  to  the  subject,  man, 
it  be  asked  whether  the  formula  intends  (1.)  man  as 
created  in  his  natural  freedom  and  innocence ;  or,  (2.) 
man  as  under  the  power  and  bondage  of  evil ;  or  (3.) 
man  as  illuminated  and  suggestively  directed  or  swayei 
Dy  the  supernatural  grace  of  God ;  or  (4.)  man  as  reger. 
erated  in  good,  and  contesting  with  currents  of  ev. 
thought  still  running  in  his  nature — all  of  which  are  im 
portant  distinctions — we  have  then  just  a  hundred  dif 
ferent  meanings  in  our  simple  formula — man  thinks.  Or, 
6 


I 


02 


T  II  K  I.  O  G  I  C  A  L  M  ETHOD 


dismissing  arithmetic  as  inappropriate,  we  may  better 
say  that  the  language  is  only  tropical,  and  the  meanings, 
of  course,  indefinitely  variable.  For  all  these,  language 
provides  only  a  single  form  of  predicate — a  single  gram- 
j  matic  formula.  And  yet  it  seems  to  be  imagined  that 
\  we  can  saddle  mere  forms  of  words,  and  ride  them  into 
j  necessary  unambiguous  conclusions  ! 

It  will  also  be  observed,  that  our  mere  reasoners  and 
provers  in  words,  in  order  to  get  their  formulas  arrayed 
for  action,  always  rule  out,  or  clear  away,  those  antago¬ 
nistic  figures,  paradoxes,  and  contrarious  representations, 
by  means  of  which  only  a  full  and  comprehensive  ex¬ 
pression  of  the  truth  is  possible.  They  are  great  in  the 
detection  of  disagreements,  or  what  they  call  contradic¬ 
tions  ;  and  the  finding  out  of  such  elements,  or  the 
reducing  of  another  to  this  bad  dilemma,  by  their  con¬ 
structive  process,  they  suppose  to  be  a  real  triumph  of 
intelligence — which  is  the  same  as  to  say  that  they  can 
r  endure  none  but  a  one-sided  view  of  truth. 

It  will  almost  always  happen,  also,  to  this  class  of  in¬ 
vestigators,  that,  when  reasoning  of  man,  life,  self-active 
being,  God,  and  religion,  they  will  take  up  their  formulas 
under  the  conditions  of  cause  and  effect,  or  space  and 
time,  or  set  them  under  the  atomic  relations  of  inorganic 
matter.  Discussing  the  human  will,  for  example,  or  the 
great  question  of  liberty,  the  writer  will  be  overpowered 
by  the  terms  and  predicates  of  language ;  which  being 
mostly  derived  from  the  physical  world,  are  charged,  to 
the  same  extent,  with  a  mechanical  significance.  And 
then  we  shall  have  a  sophism,  great  or  small,  according 
to  his  capacity — a  ponderous  volume,  it  may  be,  of 


DECEITFUL. 


63 


formulas,  filled  up,  rolled  about,  inverted,  crossed  and 
twisted — a  grand,  stupendous,  convoluted  sophism — all  a 
mere  outward  practice,  however,  on  words  anc  propo¬ 
sitions,  in  which,  as  they  contain  a  form  of  cause  and 
effect  in  their  own  nature,  it  is  easily  made  out  that 
human  liberty  is  the  liberty  of  a  scale-beam,  turn-d  by 
the  heavier  weights.  Meantime,  the  question  is  only  a 
question  of  consciousness,  one  in  which  the  simple  de¬ 
cision  of  consciousness  is  final ; — to  which,  argument, 
whether  good  or  bad,  can  really  add  nothing,  from  which 
nothing  take. 

As  great  mischief  and  perplexity  is  often  wrought  by 
raising  the  question  of  before  and  after,  under  the  laws  of 
time.  The  speculative,  would-be  philosopher  wants  to 
be  able  always  to  say  which  is  first  in  the  soul’s  action — - 
this  or  that.  What  endless  debates  have  we  had  in  the¬ 
ology  concerning  questions  of  priority — whether  faith 
is  before  repentance,  or  repentance  before  faith ; 
whether  one  or  the  other  is  before  love,  or  love  before 
them  both  ;  whether  justification  is  before  sanctification 
and  the  like.  We  seem  to  suppose  that  a  soul  can  be 
taken  to  pieces,  or  have  its  exercises  parted  and  put  un¬ 
der  laws  of  time,  so  that  we  can  see  them  go,  in  regular 
clock-work  order.  Whereas,  being  alive  in  God  when  it 
is  truly  united  to  Him,  its  right  exercises,  being  functions  01 
life,  are  of  course  mutual  conditions  one  of  another.  Pass¬ 
ing  out  of  mechanism,  or  the  empire  of  dead  atoms,  into 
the  plastic  realm  of  life,  all  questions  of  before  and  ifter  we 
leave  behind  us.  We  do  not  ask  whether  the  heart  causes 
the  heaving  of  the  lungs,  or  whether  the  lungs  have 
priority,  and  keep  up  the  beating  of  the  heart ;  01 


64 


THE  LOGICAL  METHOD 


whether  the  digestive  faculty  is  first  in  time,  or  the  assimi¬ 
lative,  or  the  nervous.  We  look  at  the  whole  body  as  a 
vital  nature,  and  finding  every  function  alive,  every  fibre 
active,  we  perceive  that  all  the  parts,  even  the  minutest, 
exist  and  act  as  mutual  conditions  one  of  another.  And 
so  it  is  in  spiritual  life.  Every  grace  supposes  every 
other  as  its  condition,  and  time  is  wholly  out  of  the 
question.  But,  the  moment  any  one  of  our  atomizing  and 
mechanising  speculators  comes  into  the  field,  the  question 
of  priority  is  immediately  raised.  Perceiving  that  love 
seems  to  imply  or  involve  faith,  he  declares  that  faith  is 
first.  Then,  as  another  is  equally  sure  that  faith  implies 
love,  he  maintains  that  love  is  first.  A  third,  in  the  same 
way,  that  repentance  is  before  both  ;  a  fourth,  that  both 
are  before  repentance.  And  now  we  have  a  general 
debate  on  hand,  in  which  the  formulas  will  be  heard 
ringing  as  flails,  for  a  dozen  years,  or  a  century.  Mean¬ 
time,  it  will  happen  that  all  the  several  schools  of  wis¬ 
dom  are  at  fault,  inasmuch  as  none  of  the  priorities  are 
first,  or  rather  all  are  first ;  being  all  conditions  mutually 
of  one  another.  Might  it  not  have  been  better,  at  the 
first,  to  clear  ourselves  of  time  and  the  law  it  weaves 
into  words  and  predicates — to  perceive,  as  by  a  little  in¬ 
sight  we  may,  that,  in  all  vital  and  plastic  natures,  the 
(unctions  have  a  mutual  play? 

In  the  speculative  deductive  use  of  formulas,  it  some¬ 
times  happens,  also,  that  the  argument  contains  a  law  of 
degrees,  and  thus  constructs,  when  fairly  carried  out,  an 
infinite  series.  Thus,  in  the  argument  for  a  God,  “  an 
effect,”  we  are  told,  “infers  a  cause  ;  a  design,  a  designer/' 
The  doubter  assents  :  “  but,”  he  adds,  “  the  supposed  de 


signer  is  one  who  is  adapted,  in  his  nature,  to  the  making  of 
designs,  and  therefore,  I  perceive,  in  this  adaptation  oi 
means  to  ends  in  him,  that  following  the  same  law,  there 
is  a  designer  back  of  him.  Go  with  me,  then,  up  an  in¬ 
finite  series,  as  the  argument  legitimately  requires,  or  else 
excuse  me  from  the  first  step,  as  you  excuse  yourself  from 
the  second/'  By  just  this  kind  of  process  it  was  that 
Shelley,  immersed  in  the  logic  of  Oxford,  became  an 
atheist ;  as  also  all  the  scholars  of  that  great  university 
might  properly  be,  and  would,  if  they  yielded  implicitly 
to  the  drill  under  which  they  are  placed,  and  forgot  all 
the  simpler  wisdom  of  nature,  in  the  learned  wisdom  that 
is  taught  them.  But  if  we  can  think  it  any  thing  to  see 
God — all  formulas,  inferences,  degrees,  out  of  the  ques¬ 
tion — if  we  can  say  “God  is  expressed  to  us  here  on  every 
side,  shining  out  as  a  Form  of  Intelligence  in  every  object 
round  us,”  it  will  not  be  difficult  to  find  the  God  our  logic 
denies  us.  This,  in  fact,  is  the  real  virtue  of  Paley’s 
argument ;  only,  to  give  it  a  more  imposing  logical  form, 
he  has  run  it  into  a  suicidal  series  by  the  statement. 

In  offering  these  illustrations  of  the  value  of  the  logical 
method  in  religious  and  moral  reasonings,  I  have  only 
hinted  at  some  of  the  important  issues  involved.  To  set 
the  subject  forth  in  all  its  momentous  relations  would 
require  a  volume  ;  and  such  a  volume  the  world  intensely 
neeas. 


11.  In  the  reading  or  interpretation  of  an  author, 
writing  on  intellectual  and  moral  subjects,  we  are  to 
observe,  first  of  all,  whether  he  takes  up  some  given  word 
or  figure,  and  makes  it  a  law  to  his  thinking.  If  some 


f>6  INTERPRETATION. 

symbol  that  he  uses  to-day  stands  by  him  also  to-morrow, 
rules  his  doctrine,  shapes  his  argument,  drawing  every 
thing  into  formal  consistency  with  it,  then  we  are  to  take 
up  the  presumption  that  he  is  out  of  the  truth,  and  set 
ourselves  to  find  where  his  mistake  is.  Brown  started  a 
new  theory  of  cause  and  effect,  demolishing  these  first 
ideas,  or  we  might  even  say,  categories  of  the  mind,  and 
reducing  all  events  to  mere  conditions  of  antecedence 
and  consequence.  It  was  a  great  discovery,  and  when 
it  was  drawn  out  into  full  form  or  complete  system, 
setting,  as  one  may  say,  a  whole  book  revolving 
about  these  two  words,  it  was  too  captivating  to  be 
rejected.  Never  was  the  grave  world  of  philosophy 
more  remarkably  fooled,  or  at  a  cheaper  rate.  It  did  not 
occur  to  many  of  the  learned  professors  to  question  the 
real  import  of  these  two  famous  words,  antecedence  and 
consequence ;  in  doing  which,  it  would  have  come  to  light 
that  they  are  the  loosest  and  remotest  of  all  rhetorical 
figures  applicable  to  the  subject,  having,  in  fact,  no  real 
applicability  at  all.  They  did  not  ask  whether  the 
antecedence  spoken  of  is  antecedence  in  space.  Then, 
when  a  man  follows  a  wheelbarrow,  the  causative 
agency  of  the  motion  is  in  the  wheelbarrow.  Or,  not 
satisfied  with  this,  they  did  not  inquire  whether  antece¬ 
dence  of  time  is  intended.  Then,  it  follows,  that  if  the 
cause  be  antecedent  in  time  to  the  effect,  there  is, 
for  just  that  length  of  time,  a  cause  without  an  effect. 
And  so,  or  by  this  brief  inquest,  it  would  have  been  seen, 
that  the  whole  scheme  of  antecedence  and  consequence  is 
nothing  but  a  very  insipid  blunder, — that  there  is  in  fact 
no  real  antecedence  of  any  kind  in  the  case — nothing  to 


\ 


INTERPRETATION. 


67 


give  color  to  the  words,  save  that  when  we  are 
going  to  be  causes,  or  act  causatively,  we  commonly 
make  approaches  and  preparatory  motions.  I  bring  this 
illustration  simply  to  say  that  a  philosopher,  taking  up 
this  theory,  and  finding  it  hung  about  the  one  simije 
figure  of  before  and  after,  as  being  itself  the  very  train, 
and  sufficient  to  rule  all  other  truth,  ought  to  have  pre¬ 
sumed  a  falsity.  And  how  miserable  the  falsity  that  ex¬ 
changed  the  word  cause ,  naming  an  exact,  eternal,  and 
necessary  idea,  for  a  figure  of  time  or  space  that  had 
scarcely  any  intelligent  relation  to  the  truth  whatever ! 

So,  in  general,  we  are  to  judge  of  all  moral  and  religious 
theories,  hung  about  single  words,  or  based  on  single 

i 

definitions,  and  carried  through  whole  lives  of  specu¬ 
lation. 

12.  If  we  find  the  writer,  in  hand,  moving  with  a  free 
motion,  and  tied  to  no  one  symbol,  unless  in  some  popular  \  J 
effort,  or  for  some  single  occasion ;  if  we  find  him  multi¬ 
plying  antagonisms,  offering  cross  views,  and  bringing 
us  round  the  field  to  show  us  how  it  looks  from  different 
points,  then  we  are  to  presume  that  he  has  some  truth  in 
hand  which  it  becomes  us  to  know.  We  are  to  pass 
round  accordingly  with  him,  take  up  all  his  symbols,  catch 
a  view  of  him  here,  and  another  there,  use  one  thing  to 
qualify  and  interpret  another,  and  the  other  to  shed  light 
upon  that,  and,  by  a  process  of  this  kind,  endeavor  to 
comprehend  his  antagonisms,  and  settle  into  a  complete 
view  of  his  meaning. 

What  Goethe  says  of  himself  is  true  of  all  efficient 
writers : — “  I  have  always  regarded  all  I  have  done,  as 


o8 


INTERPRETATION. 


solely  symbol  cal,  and,  at  bottom,  it  does  not  signify 
whether  I  make  pots  or  dishes.”  And  then,  what  Eck- 
erman  says  of  him  in  his  preface,  follows  of  course : 
“  Goethe’s  detached  remarks  upon  poetry,  have  often  an 
appearance  of  contradiction.  Sometimes  he  lays  all  the 
stress  on  the  material  which  the  outward  world  affords, 
sometimes  upon  that  which  is  given  to  the  inward  world 
of  the  poet ;  sometimes  the  greatest  importance  is  attached 
to  the  subject,  sometimes  to  the  mode  of  treating  it; 
sometimes  all  is  made  to  depend  on  perfection  of  form, 
sometimes  form  is  to  be  neglected,  and  all  the  attention 
paid  to  the  spirit.  (But  all  these  seeming  contradictions 
are,  in  fact,  only  successive  presentations  of  single  sides 
of  a  truth,  which,  by  their  union,  manifest  completely  to 
us  its  existence,  and  guide  us  to  a  perception  of  its  nature. 
I  confide  in  the  insight  and  comprehensive  power  of  the 
cultivated  reader,  not  to  stop  at  any  one  part,  as  seen  by 
itself,  but  to  keep  his  eye  on  the  significance  of  the 
whole,  and  by  that  means,  to  bring  each  particular  truth 
into  its  proper  place  and  relations.” 

Is  it  a  fault  of  Goethe  that  he  must  be  handled  in  this 
manner  ?  Rather  is  it  one  of  the  highest  proofs  of 
his  genius  and  the  real  greatness  of  his  mind.  Had  he 
been  willing  to  stay  under  some  one  figure,  and  draw 
himself  out  into  formal  consistency,  throwing  off"  none  of 
these  bold  antagonisms,  he  must  have  been  a  very  dif¬ 
ferent  character — not  Goethe,  but  some  dull  proser  or 
male  spinster  of  logic,  never  heard  of  by  us. 

What,  then,  shall  we  say  of  Christ  and  the  Gospel  of 
John  ?  If  it  requires  such  an  array  of  antagonisms  to  set 
forth  the  true  idea  of  poetry,  what  does  it  require  to  set 


I 


69 


INTERPRETATION. 

forth  God  and  redemption  ?  What  should  we  expect,  in 
such  a  work,  but  a  vast  compilation  of  symbols  and  of 
forms,  which  to  the  mere  wordsman,  are  contrary  to  each 
other  ?  And  then  what  shall  we  do  ? — what,  for  example, 
wilh  the  trinity,  the  atonement,  the  bondage  and  freedom 
of  sin  ?  Shall  we  say,  with  the  infidel,  this  is  all  a  medley 
of  contradiction — mere  nonsense,  fit  only  to  be  rejected  ? 
Shall  we  take  up  these  bold  antagonisms,  as  many  ortho¬ 
dox  believers  have  done,  seize  upon  some  one  symbol 
as  the  real  form  of  the  truth,  and  compel  all  the  others 
to  submit  to  it ;  making,  thus,  as  many  sects  as  there  are 
symbols,  and  as  many  petty  wars  about  each  truth  as  it 
has  sides  or  inches  of  surface  ?  Or  shall  we  endeavor, 
with  the  Unitarians,  to  decoct  the  whole  mass  of  symbol, 
and  draw  off  the  extract  into  pitchers  of  our  own ;  fine, 
consistent,  nicely-rounded  pitchers,  which,  so  far  from 
setting  out  any  where  towards  infinity,  we  can  carry  at 
pleasure  by  the  handle,  and  definitely  measure  by  the 
eye  ?  What  critic  has  ever  thought  of  handling  Goethe 
in  the  methods  just  named  ?  We  neither  scout  his  incon¬ 
sistency,  nor  drill  him  into  some  one  of  his  forms,  nor 
decoct  him  into  forms  of  our  own.  But  we  call  him  the 
many-sided  great  man  ;  we  let  him  stand  in  his  own 
chosen  symbols,  whether  they  be  “pots  or  dishes,”  and 
do  him  the  greater  honor  because  of  the  complexity  and 
the  magnificent  profusion  of  his  creations. 

There  is  no  book  in  the  world  that  contains  so  many 
repugnances,  or  antagonistic  forms  of  assertion,  as  the 
Bible.  Therefore,  if  any  man  please  to  play  off  his 
constructive  logic  upon  it,  he  can  easily  show  it  up  as  he 
absurdest  book  in  the  world.  But  whosoever  wants  on 


70 


INTERPRETATION. 


the  other  hand,  really  to  behold  and  receive  all  truth, 
and  would  have  the  truth-world  overhang  him  as  an 
empyrean  of  stars,  complex,  multitudinous,  striving 
antagonistically,  yet  comprehended,  height  above  height, 
and  deep  under  deep,  in  a  boundless  score  of  harmony ; 
what  man  soever,  content  with  no  small  rote  of  logic 
and  catechism,  reaches  with  true  hunger  after  this,  and 
will  offer  himself  to  the  many-sided  forms  of  the  scrip¬ 
ture  with  a  perfectly  ingenuous  and  receptive  spirit ;  he 
shall  find  his  nature  flooded  with  senses,  vastnesses,  and 
powers  of  truth,  such  as  it  is  even  greatness  to  feel. 
God’s  own  lawgivers,  heroes,  poets,  historians,  prophets, 
and  preachers  and  doers  of  righteousness,  will  bring  him 
their  company,  and  representing  each  his  own  age,  char¬ 
acter,  and  mode  of  thought,  shine  upon  him  as  so  many 
cross  lights  on  his  field  of  knowledge,  to  give  him  the 
most  complete  and  manifold  view  possible  of  every  truth. 
He  has  not  only  the  words  of  Christ,  the  most  manifold 
of  all  teachers,  but  he  has  gospels  which  present  him  in 
his  different  words  and  attitudes ;  and  then,  besides,  he  has 
four,  some  say  five,  distinct  writers  of  epistles,  who  fol¬ 
low,  giving  each  his  own  view  of  the  doctrine  of  salva¬ 
tion  and  the  Christian  life,  (views  so  unlike  or  antagonis¬ 
tic  al  that  many  have  regarded  them  as  being  quite  irrec¬ 
oncilable) — Paul,  the  dialectic,  commonly  so  called ;  John, 
the  mystic  ;  James,  the  moralizer  ;  Peter,  the  homilectic  ; 
and  perhaps  a  fifth  in  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  whc  ;s 
a  Christian  templar  and  IJebraizer.  The  Old  Testament 
corresponds.  Never  was  there  a  book  uniting  so  many 
contrarious  aspects  of  one  and  the  same  truth.  The 
more  complete,  therefore,  because  of  its  manifoldness ; 


INTERPRETATION. 


71 


nay,  the  more  really  harmonious,  for  its  apparent  want 
of  harmony. 

How,  then,  are  we  to  receive  it  and  come  into  its 
truth  r  Only  in  the  comprehensh  e  manner  just  now 
suggested  ;  not  by  destroying  the  repugnances,  but  bj 
allowing  them  to  stand,  offering  our  mind  to  their  impres¬ 
sions,  and  allowing  it  to  gravitate  inwardly,  towards  that 
whole  of  truth,  in  which  they  coalesce.  And  when  we 
are  in  that  whole,  we  shall  have  no  dozen  propositions  oi 
our  own  in  which  to  give  it  forth ;  neither  will  it  be  a 
whole  which  we  can  set  before  the  world,  standing  on 
one  leg,  in  a  perfectly  definite  shape,  clear  of  all  mystery:  S 
but  it  will  be  such  a  whole  as  requires  a  whole  universe  ^ 
of  rite,  symbol,  incarnation,  historic  breathings,  and 
poetic  fires,  to  give  it  expression, — in  a  word,  just  what 
it  now  has.  Finding  it  not  a  Goethe,  but  as  much  greater 
than  he  as  God  is  greater  than  a  genius  of  our  own 
human  race,  when  we  think  of  ourselves  trying  to  give 
out  the  substantial  import  of  the  volume  in  a  few  scant 
formulas,  it  will  probably  occur  to  us  just  to  ask  what 
figure  we  should  make,  in  a  similar  attempt  upon  one 
who  is  no  more  than  a  German  poet  ?  And  then,  it  will 
not  be  strange  if  we  drop  our  feeble,  bloodless  sentences 
and  dogmas,  whether  of  belief  or  denial,  and  return,  duly 
mortified,  into  the  faith  of  those  august  and  magnificent 
forms  of  scripture — incarnation  ;  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost ;  atonement  as  blood,  life,  sacrifice,  propitiation, 
ransom,  liberty,  regeneration,  wisdom,  righteousness, 
sanctification,  and  redemption — the  great  mystery  li 
godliness. 


72 


LANGUAGE  INSUFFICIENT 


13.  The  views  of  language  and  interpretation  I  have 
here  offered,  suggest  the  very  great  difficulty,  if  not  im¬ 
possibility  of  mental  science  and  religious  dogmatism. 
In  all  such  uses  or  attempted  uses,  the  effort  is  to  make 
language  answer  a  purpose  that  is  against  its  nature. 
The  “  winged  words”  are  required  to  serve  as  beasts  ol 
burden  ;  or,  what  is  no  better,  to  forget  their  poetic  life, 
as  messengers  of  the  air,  and  stand  still,  fixed  upon  the 
ground,  as  wooden  statues  of  truths.  Which,  if  they 
seem  to  do  ;  if,  to  comfort  our  studies  of  dogma,  the}' 
assume  the  inert  faces  we  desire,  and  suffer  us  to  arrange 
the  fixed  attitudes  of  their  bodies,  yet,  as  little  Memnons 
touched  and  made  vocal  by  tjie  light,  they  will  be  dis¬ 
coursing  still  of  the  free  empyrean,  disturbing,  and  scat¬ 
tering,  by  their  voices,  all  the  exact  meanings  we  had 
thought  to  hold  them  to,  in  the  nice  corporeal  order  of 
our  science. 

In  algebra  and  geometry,  the  ideas  themselves  being 
absolute,  the  terms  or  names  also  may  be  ;  but  in  mental 
science  and  religion,  no  such  exactness  is  possible,  be¬ 
cause  our  apprehensions  of  truth  are  here  only  proxi¬ 
mate  and  relative.  I  see  not,  therefore,  how  the  subject 
matter  of  mental  science  and  religion  can  ever  be 
included  under  the  fixed  forms  of  dogma.  Definitions 
cannot  bring  us  over  the  difficulty  ;  for  definitions  are, 
in  fact,  only  changes  of  symbol,  and,  if  we  take  them  to 
be  more,  will  infallibly  lead  us  into  error.  In  fact,  no 
man  is  more  certain  to  run  himself  into  mischievous 
error,  than  he  who  places  implicit  confidence  in  defini 
tions.  After  all,  definitions  will  be  words,  and  science 


FOR  THE  USES  OF  DOGMA. 


73 


wiL  be  words,  and  words,  place  them  in  whatever  shapes 
we  may,  wdl  be  only  shadows  of  truth. 

Accordingly,  it  will  ever  be  found,  that  in  mental  sci¬ 
ence,  the  investigators  are,  in  fact,  only  trying  to  see  if 
they  can  make  up  a  true  man  out  of  some  ten  or  twenty 
or  forty  words  in  the  dictionary.  The  phrenologists 
claim  to  have  done  it,  and  even  to  show  us  the  localities 
of  these  words  in  our  heads,  and  how  very  man-like  their 
word-elements  will  work  when  put  together.  All  the 
systems  are  plausible — some,  we  are  told,  are  infallible — 
the  last  and  completed  results  of  mental  science !  And 
yet  there  seem  to  be  questions  coming  after.  And 
probably  it  will  be  found,  after  all,  that  the  only  way  to 
make  up  a  real  man  is  to  put  the  whole  dictionary  into 
him ;  and  then,  most  likely,  some  spaces  will  be  found 
vacant,  some  members  wanting.  It  will  also  be  required, 
too,  that  the  words  be  not  packed  together  mechanically 
in  the  man,  but  that  they  all  be  alive  in  him — one  living, 
plastic,  organically  perfect  whole — acting,  however,  a 
little  mysteriously  sometimes,  as  the  life-power  even  of  an 
egg  or  a  bean  will  presume  to  do  ;  or  what  is  more  con- 
fusive  to  theory,  acting  diseasedly  and  contrarily,  as  if 
life  had  let  in  death,  and  a  quarrel  for  possession  were 
going  on  within.  And  then,  if  our  complete  dictionary 
man  should  be  finally  produced,  alive,  mysterious,  acting 
diseasedly,  in  what  shape  would  the  now  completed  sci- 
s  ence  be  as  likely  to  emerge,  as  in  those  forms  of  life 
which  a  Shakspeare,  or  some  great  universal  poet  of 
humanity  might  set  before  us  ?  Poets,  then,  are  the  true 
metaphysicians,  and  if  there  be  any  complete  science  of 
man  to  come,  they  must  bring  it. 

7 


74 


LANGUAGE  INSIFFICIENT 


Is  it  to  be  otherwise  in  religion  ?  Can  there  be  pm. 
duced,  in  human  language,  a  complete  and  proper  Chris- 
tian  theology ;  can  the  Christian  truth  be  offered  in  the 
molds  of  any  dogmatic  statement  ?  What  is  the  Chris¬ 
tian  truth  ?  Pre-eminently  and  principally,  it  is  the 
expression  of  God — God  coming  into  expression,  through 
histories  and  rites,  through  an  incarnation,  and  through 
language — in  one  syllable,  by  the  W ord.  The  endeavor 
is,  by  means  of  expression,  and  under  the  laws  of  expres¬ 
sion,  to  set  forth  God — His  providence,  and  His  govern¬ 
ment,  and,  what  is  more  and  higher  than  all,  God’s  own 
feeling,  His  truth,  love,  justice,  compassion.  Well,  if  it 
be  something  for  a  poet  to  express  man,  it  is  doubtless 
somewhat  more  for  a  book  to  be  constructed  that  will 
express  God,  and  open  His  eternity  to  man.  And  if  it 
would  be  somewhat  difficult  to  put  the  poet  of  humanity 
into  a  few  short  formulas,  that  will  communicate  all  he 
expresses,  with  his  manifold,  wondrous  art,  will  it  pro¬ 
bably  be  easier  to  transfer  the  grand  poem  of  salvation, 
that  which  expresses  God,  even  the  feeling  of  God,  into  a 
few  dull  propositions ;  which,  when  they  are  produced, 
we  may  call  the  sum  total  of  the  Christian  truth  ?  Let 
me  freely  confess  that,  when  I  see  the  human  teacher 
elaborating  a  phrase  of  speech,  or  mere  dialectic  proposi¬ 
tion,  that  is  going  to  tell  what  God  could  only  show  me 
by  the  history  of  ages,  and  the  mystic  life  and  death  of 
Jesus  our  Lord,  I  should  be  deeply  shocked  by  his  irrever¬ 
ence,  if  I  were  not  rather  occupied  with  pity  for  his 
infirmity. 

It  ought  not  to  be  necessary  to  remind  any  reader  of 
the  bible,  that  religion  has  a  natural  and  profound  alliance 
with  poetry.  Hence,  a  very  large  share  of  the  bible 


.'OR  THE  USES  OF  DOGMA. 


75 


s  composed  of  poetic  contributions.  Another  share, 
equally  large,  is  that  which  comes  to  us  in  a  form  of 
history  and  fact ;  that  is,  of  actual  life,  which  is  equally 
remote  from  all  abstractions,  and,  in  one  view,  equally 
poetic ;  for  history  is  nothing  but  an  evolution  or  expres¬ 
sion  of  God  and  man  in  their  own  nature  and  character. 
The  teachings  of  Christ  are  mere  utterances  of  truth,  not 
argumentations  over  it.  He  gives  it  forth  in  living 
symbols,  without  definition,  without  proving  it,  ever,  as 
the  logicians  speak,  well  understanding  that  truth  is  that 
which  shines  in  its  own  evidence  that  which  finds  us,  to 
use  an  admirable  expression  of  Coleridge,  and  thus  enters 
into  us. 

But  Paul, — was  not  Paul  a  dialectician  ?  the  dialec¬ 
tician,  some  say ;  for,  confessedly,  there  is  no  other  among 
all  the  scripture  writers.  Did  Paul,  then,  it  will  be 
asked,  set  himself  to  an  impossible  task,  when  he  under¬ 
took  to  reason  out  and  frame  into  logical  order,  a  scheme 
of  Christian  theology  ?  To  this,  I  answer,  that  I  find  no 
such  Paul  in  the  scripture,  as  this  method  of  speaking 
supposes.  Paul  undertakes  no  theologic  system,  in  any 
case.  He  only  speaks  to  some  actual  want,  to  remove 
some  error,  rectify  some  hurtful  mistake.  There  is 
nothing  of  the  system-maker  about  him.  Neither  is  he 
to  be  called  a  dogmatizer,  or  a  dialectic  writer,  in  any 
proper  sense  of  the  term.  True,  there  is  a  form  of 
reasoning,  or  argumentation  about  him,  and  he  abounds 
in  illatives  ;  piling  “For”  upon  “For”  in  constant 
succession.  But,  if  he  is  narrowly  watched,  it  will 
be  seen  that  this  is  only  a  dialectic  form  that  had  settled 
on  his  language,  under  his  old  theo.ogic  discipline 


7G 


LANGUAGE  INSUFFICIENT 


previous  to  his  conversion  ;  for  every  man  gets  a  lan¬ 
guage  constructed  early  in  life,  which  nothing  can  cnange 
afterwards.  Notwithstanding  his  deductive  manner,  it 
will  be  plain  to  any  one  who  reads  him  with  a  true 
insight,  that,  under  the  fn/m  of  ratiocination,  he  is  not  so 
much  theologizing,  as  flaming  in  the  holy  inspirations  of 
truth  ;  speaking  not  as  a  logician,  but  as  a  seer.  Under 
so  many  illatives  and  deductive  propositions,  he  is  emit¬ 
ting  fire,  not  formulas  for  the  mere  speculative  under¬ 
standing  ;  rolling  on,  in  the  vehement  power  of  a  soul 
possessed  with  Christ,  to  declare  the  mystery  that  hath 
been  hid  for  ages ;  conceiving  nowhere  that  he  is  the 
first  professor  of  Christian  dogmatics  ;  nowhere  thinking, 
as  a  Christian  Rabbi,  to  prepare  a  Targum  on  the  Gospels. 

Besides,  it  will  be  clear,  on  examination,  that  his 
illatives  often  miscarry,  when  taken  as  mere  instruments, 
or  terms  of  logic,  while,  if  we  conceive  him  rushing 
on  through  so  many  “Fors”  and  parentheses,  which 
belong  to  his  old  Pharisaic  culture,  and  serve  as  a  con¬ 
tinuous  warp  of  connectives  to  his  speech — now  become 
the  vehicle  or  channel,  not  for  the  modes  of  Rabbi 
Gamaliel,  but  for  a  stream  of  Christian  fire — what  before 
seemed  to  wear  a  look  of  inconsequence,  assumes  a  port 
of  amazing  energy,  and  he  becomes  the  fullest,  heartiest, 
ana  most  irresistible  of  all  the  inspired  writers  of  the 
Christian  scriptures.  But,  in  order  to  this  his  true  atti¬ 
tude,  we  must  make  him  a  seer,  and  not  a  system  maker ; 
we  must  read  his  epistle  as  a  prophesying  of  the  spirit, 
not  as  a  Socratic  lecture. 

We  find  little,  therefore,  in  the  scriptures,  to  encourage 
the  hope  of  a  complete  and  sufficient  Christian  dogma- 


FOR  THE  USES  OF  DOGMA. 


77 


tism,  or  of  a  satisfactory  and  truly  adequate  system  of 
scientific  theology.  Language,  under  the  laws  of  logic  or 
speculation,  does  not  seem  to  be  adequate  to  any  such 
use  or  purpose.  The  scriptures  of  God,  in  providing 
a  clothing  for  religious  truth,  have  little  to  do  with  mere 
dialectics,  much  to  do  with  the  freer  creations  of  poetry ; 
and  that  for  reasons,  evidently,  which  ought  to  waken 
a  salutary  scepticism  in  us,  in  regard  to  the  possibility  of 
that,  which  so  many  great  minds  have  been  attempting 
with  so  great  confidence  for  so  many  hundreds  of  years. 
With  due  respect,  also,  I  will  venture  to  ask,  whether  the 
actual  results  of  this  immense  engineering  process,  which 
we  call  dogmatic  and  polemic  theology — as  surely  polemic 
as  dogmatic — does  not  give  some  countenance  to  the 
doubt  I  am  suggesting? 

And,  perhaps,  the  saying  of  Lord  Bacon  will  turn  out 
to  have  more  of  truth  in  it  than  he  himself  perceived : 
“  Philosophy  has  three  objects ;  God,  nature,  and  man  * 
as,  also,  three  kinds  of  rays ;  for  nature  strikes  the  human 
intellect  with  a  direct  ray — God  with  a  refracted  ray, 
from  the  inequality  of  the  medium  betwixt  the  Creator 
and  the  creature — man,  as  exhibited  to  himself  with 
a  reflected  ray.”  Now,  language,  as  we  have  seen,  has 
a  literal  character  in  regard  to  physical  objects.  It 
“writes,”  as  Bacon  also  says  it  is  the  true  aim  of  philo¬ 
sophy  to  do,  “a  revelation  and  real  view  of  the  stamps  and 
signatures  of  the  Creator  upon  the  creatures.”  But, 
when  we  come  to  religion  and  mental  science,  our  terms 
are  only  analogies,  signs,  shadows,  so  to  speak,  of  the 
formless  mysteries  above  us  and  within  us.  Here  we 
see  nothing,  save  in  refracted  or  reflected  rays ;  there¬ 
fore,  with  but  a  limited  capacity  of  mental  understanding  # 


78 


LANGUAGE  INSUFFICIENT 


It  accords,  also,  with  this,  that  while  natural  science  is 
advancing  with  so  great  rapidity  and  certainty  of  move¬ 
ment,  the  advances  of  mental  science  and  theology  are 
so  irregular  and  obscure,  and  are  wrought  out  by  a 
process  so  conflicting  and  tortuous.  They  seem,  in  fact, 
to  have  no  advance,  save  what  may  be  called  a  cultiva¬ 
tion  of  symbol,  produced  by  the  multifarious  industry  of 
debate  and  system-making.  There  is,  however,  one 
hope  for  mental  and  religious  truth,  and  their  final  settle¬ 
ment,  which  I  confess  I  see  but  dimly,  and  can  but 
faintly  express,  or  indicate.  It  is,  that  physical  science, 
leading  the  way,  setting  outward  things  in  their  true 
proportions,  opening  up  their  true  contents,  revealing  their 
genesis  and  final  causes  and  laws,  and  weaving  all  into  the 
unity  of  a  real  universe,  will  so  perfect  our  knowledges  and 
conceptions  of  them,  that  we  can  use  them,  in  the  second 
department  of  language,  with  more  exactness.  There  is, 
we  have  also  seen,  in  what  we  call  nature,  that  is,  in  its 
objects,  an  outward  grammar  of  relations,  which  con¬ 
structs  the  grammar  of  language ;  or  what  is  not  far 
different,  the  logic  of  propositions.  In  the  laws  ol  nature, 
I  suppose,  there  is,  in  like  manner,  an  internal  grammar 
which  is  certain,  as  it  is  evolved,  to  pass  into  language, 
and  be  an  internal  grammar  in  that,  systematizing  and 
steadying  its  uses.  And  then  language  will  be  as  much 
more  full  and  intelligent,  as  it  has  more  of  God’s  intellb 
gence,  in  the  system  of  nature,  imparted  to  its  symbols. 
For,  undoubtedly,  the  whole  universe  of  nature  is  a  per¬ 
fect  analogon  of  the  whole  universe  of  thought  or  spirit. 
Therefore,  as  nature  becomes  truly  a  universe  only 
through  science  revealing  its  universal  laws,  the  true 


FOR  TIIE  USES  OF  DOGMA. 


79 


universe  of  thought  and  spirit  cannot  sooner  be  conceived 
It  would  be  easy  to  show,  in  this  connection,  the  immense 
force  already  exerted  over  the  empire  of  spiritual  truth, 
by  astronomy,  chemistry,  geology,  the  revelations  of 
light  and  electricity,  and  especially  of  the  mysterious 
and  plastic  workings  of  life,  in  the  animal  and  vegetable 
kingdoms.  We  are  accustomed  to  say,  that  this  is  not 
the  same  world  to  live  in  that  it  was  fifty  years  ago. 
Just  as  true  is  it,  that  it  is  not  the  same  world  to  think 
in,  that  it  then  was, — of  which,  also,  we  shall,  by  and  by, 
take  notice. 

If,  then,  it  please  any  one  to  believe,  notwithstanding 
the  present  incapacities  of  dogmatism,  that  when,  through 
science,  we  are  able  to  see  things  physical  in  their 
true  force  and  relations,  having,  also,  within  us,  inbreathed 
by  the  spirit  of  God,  a  comprehensive  heart  and  feelings 
sufficiently  cleared  of  prejudice,  to  behold,  in  the  univer¬ 
sal  mirror  of  God,  His  universal  truth, — if,  I  say,  any 
one  please  to  believe,  that  now  the  Christian  world 
may  arrive  at  some  final  and  determinate  apprehensions 
of  Christian  doctrine,  I  will  not  object.  But,  if  they 
do,  observe,  it  will  only  be  that  they  have  settled,  at 
last,  into  a  comprehensive  reception  of  the  universal 
symbolism,  and  not  that  they  have  invented  a  few  propo¬ 
sitions,  so  intensely  significant  and  true,  as  to  dispense 
with  all  besides. 

14.  It  is  important  to  notice,  as  connected  with  the 
subject  of  language,  that  dogmatical  propositions,  such  as 
are  commonly  woven  into  creeds  and  catechisms  of 
doctrine,  have  not  the  certainty  they  are  commonly 


CREEDS  AND 


V 


m 


supposed  to  have.  They  only  give  us  the  seeing  of  the 
authors,  at  the  precise  stand-point  occupied  by  them,  at 
the  time,  and  they  are  true  only  as  seen  from  that  point, 
— not  even  there,  save  in  a  proximate  sense.  Passing  on, 
descending  the  current  of  time,  we  will  say,  for  two 
centuries,  we  are  brought  to  a  different  point,  as  when 
we  change  positions  in  a  landscape,  and  then  we  are 
doomed  to  see  things  in  a  different  light,  in  spite  of 
ourselves.  It  is  not  that  the  truth  changes,  but 
>  that  we  change.  Our  eye  changes  color,  and  then  the 
color  of  our  eye  affects  our  seeing.  We  are  different 
men,  living  as  parts  in  a  different  system  of  things 
and  thinkings,  denyings,  and  affirmings ;  and,  as  our 
contents  and  our  antagonisms  are  different,  we  cannot 
k  see  the  same  truths  in  the  same  forms.  It  may  even  be 
I  necessary  to  change  the  forms,  to  hold  us  in  the  same 
lA  truths. 

I  could  name  phrases  that  have  been  brought  into  the 
creeds  of  many  of  our  New  England  churches,  within 
the  present  half  century,  which  are  already  waxing  old, 
and  are  doomed,  within  the  next  half  century,  to  ask  a 
re-modification. 

Besides,  in  the  original  formation  of  any  creed,  cate¬ 
chism,  or  system  of  divinity,  there  is  always  a  latent 
element  of  figure,  which,  probably,  the  authors  know  not 
of,  but  without  which,  it  is  neither  true  to  them,  nor  to 
anybody.  But  in  a  long  course  of  repetition,  the  figure 
dies  out,  and  the  formula  settles  into  a  literality,  and  then, 
if  the  repetition  goes  on,  it  is  really  an  assent  to  what  is 
i  not  true ;  for  that  which  was  true,  at  the  beginning,  has 
now  become  untrue — and  that,  however  paradoxical  it 


CONFESSIONS 


81 


may  seem,  by  being  assented  to.  What  I  here  speak  of, 
might  be  easily  illustrated  by  a  reference  to  the  dogmatic 
history  of  opinions,  concerning  sin  and  free  will.  The 
will  is  under  no  mechanical  laws.  Hence,  in  all  the 
reasonings,  affirmations,  and  denials  relating  to  the  will 
and  its  modes  of  responsible  activity,  language,  being 
mostly  derived  from  the  mechanical  world,  must  somehow 
be  divorced,  in  the  use,  from  all  its  mechanical  laws,  else  it 
imports  a  falsity.  But  the  difficulty  is,  to  keep  the  lan¬ 
guage  up  to  that  self-active  unmechanical  sense  in  which, 
only,  it  was  true  in  the  original  use ;  for  a  dull,  unthink¬ 
ing  repetition  lets  it  down  very  soon  under  the  old 
mechanical  laws,  and  then  the  same,  or  closely  similar, 
forms  of  reasoning  and  assertion  are  false.  Hence,  in 
part,  the  necessity,  I  suppose,  that  this  particular  class  of 
subjects  should  be  reinvestigated  every  fifty  years.  Con¬ 
sidering  the  infirmities  of  language,  therefore,  all  formulas 
of  doctrine  should  be  held  in  a  certain  spirit  of  accommo¬ 
dation.  They  cannot  be  pressed  to  the  letter,  for  the  very 
sufficient  reason  that  the  letter  is  never  true.  They  can 
be  regarded  only  as  proximate  representations,  and  should 
therefore  be  accepted  not  as  laws  over  belief,  or  opinion, 
but  more  as  badges  of  consent  and  good  understanding. 
The  moment  we  begin  to  speak  of  them  as  guards  and 
tests  of  purity,  we  confess  that  we  have  lost  the  sense 
of  purity,  and,  with  about  equal  certainty,  the  virtue 
itself. 

At  the  same  time,  it  is  remarkable  with  what  ease 
a  man,  who  is  sensible  of  the  fluxing  nature  and  signifi 
cance  of  words,  may  assent  to  almost  any  creed,  and 
that,  with  a  perfectly  sincere  doubt,  whether  he  does  norf 


82 


CREEDS  AND 


receive  it  in  its  most  interior  and  real  meaning ;  that  is, 
whether  going  back  to  the  men  who  made  it,  taking 
their  stand  point,  and  abating  what  belongs  to  the  form 
of  a  truth,  in  distinction  from  the  truth  itself,  he  does 
not  come  into  the  real  senses  or  interior  beliefs  they 
clothed  in  these  forms.  Perhaps  it  is  on  this  account 
that  I  have  never  been  able  to  sympathise,  at  all,  with 
the  abundant  protesting  of  the  New  England  Unitarians, 
against  creeds.  So  far  from  suffering  even  the  least 
consciousness  of  constraint,  or  oppression,  under  any 
creed,  I  have  been  readier  to  accept  as  great  a  number 
as  fell  in  my  way ;  for  when  they  are  subjected  to  the 
deepest  chemistry  of  thought,  that  which  descends  to  the 
point  of  relationship  between  the  form  of  the  truth  and 
its  interior  formless  nature,  they  become,  thereupon,  so 
elastic,  and  run  so  freely  into  each  other,  that  one  seldom 
need  have  any  difficulty  in  accepting  as  many  as  are 
offered  him.  lie  may  regard  them  as  only  a  kind  of 
battle-dooring  of  words,  blow  answering  to  blow,  while 
the  reality  of  the  play,  viz.  exercise,  is  the  same,  which¬ 
ever  side  of  the  room  is  taken,  and  whether  the  stroke  is 
given  by  the  right  hand  or  the  left. 

The  greatest  objection  that  I  know,  to  creeds, — that 
\  is,  to  creeds  of  a  theoretic  or  dogmatic  character, — is 
that  they  make  so  many  appearances  of  division,  where 
there  really  is  none,  till  the  appearances  make  it.  They 
are  likely,  also,  unless  some  debate  or  controversy 
sharpens  the  mind  to  them,  and  keeps  them  anve,  to  die 
out  of  meaning,  and  be  assented  to,  at  last,  as  a  mere 
jingle  of  words.  Thus  we  have,  in  many  of  our  orthodox 
formulas  of  trinity,  the  phrase — “  the  same  in  substance/ 


CONFESSIONS. 


83 


and  yet,  how  many  are  there,  even  of  our  theologians,  to 
whom  it  will  now  seem  a  heresy,  to  say  this  with  a 
meaning.  And  the  clause  following,  “equal  in  power 
and  glory,”  will  be  scarcely  less  supportable,  when  a 
view  of  trinity  is  offered  which  gives  the  terms  an 
earnest  and  real  significance. 

On  these  accounts,  the  best  creed  is  that  which  stays 
by  the  concrete  most  faithfully,  and  carries  its  doctrine, 
as  far  as  possible,  in  a  vehicle  of  fact  and  of  real  life. 
This  is  the  peculiar  excellence  and  beauty  of  what  is 
called  the  “Apostle’s  Creed.”  If,  however,  creeds  of 
theory,  or  systematic  dogma,  must  be  retained,  the  next 
best  arrangement  would  be  to  allow  assent  to  a  great 
number  of  such  creeds  at  once  ;  letting  them  qualify, 
assist,  and  mitigate  each  other.  And  a  virtual  allow¬ 
ance  of  this  is,  in  fact,  one  of  the  best  points  in  our 
Saybrook  Platform,  which  accepts  the  acknowledgment, 
either  of  its  own  Articles,  or  of  the  “  Doctrinal  Articles 
of  the  Church  of  England,”  or  of  the  “Westminster 
Confession,”  or  of  the  “Confession  agreed  on  at  the 
Savoy ;”  and  if  it  be  indifferent  which  of  the  four  is 
received,  there  can  be  no  objection,  certainly,  if  all  are 
received.  And  it  is  in  just  this  way  that  the  scripture 
has  its  meaning  filled  out,  qualified,  fortified,  secured 
against  subsiding  into  falsity,  or  becoming  a  mere  jingle 
of  sounds.  We  have  so  many  writers  set  before  us,  each 
in  his  own  habit,  and  giving  his  own  form  of  the  truth ; 
offering  the  truth,  some  at  one  pole,  and  some  at  the 
other,  that,  when  we  receive  and  entertain  them  all, 
making,  in  fact,  a  creed  of  them  all,  they  act  as  comple* 
mentary  forces,  and,  by  their  joint  effect,  keep  us  ever  ir 


94  HOW  AN  ORIGINAL  WRITER 

the  fullest,  liveliest,  and  most  many-sided  apprehension  of 
the  Christian  truth. 

15.  I  have  said  nothing  of  the  manner  in  which  the 
user  of  language  imparts  himself  to  it.  Undoubtedly 
every  human  language  has,  in  its  words  and  forms, 
indelible  marks  of  the  personal  character  and  habit  of  the 
men  by  whom  it  was  originally  produced.  Nay,  it  may, 
even,  be  said  that  every  language  carries  in  its  bosom 
some  flavor  of  meaning  or  import,  derived  from  all  the 
past  generations  that  have  lived  in  it.  Not  more  truly 
does  it  represent  the  forms  of  nature,  than  it  does  within, 
or  under  these  forms,  the  contents,  also,  of  history. 
And,  therefore,  what  is  called  usage,  has  a  certain  impor¬ 
tance,  when  we  seek  the  import  or  right  use  of  words 
But  not  any  such  importance  as  the  lexicographers,  and 
the  Blairizing  critics,  have  given  it.  Usage  is  a  guide  to 
use,  but  never  a  limit  upon  use.  We  have  our  freedom, 
as  our  fathers  had,  and  as  good  a  right  to  use  words  with 
new  meanings,  certainly,  as  to  have  new  thoughts. 

And  just  here,  it  is,  that  we  come  upon  a  matter, 
which,  if  it  be  too  mysterious  to  be  investigated,  is  yet 
too  important  to  be  overlooked.  In  every  writer,  distin¬ 
guished  by  mental  life,  words  have  a  significance  and 
power  breathed  into  them,  which  is  wholly  peculiar — • 
whether  it  be  in  the  rhythm,  the  collocations,  the  cadences, 
or  the  internal  ideas,  it  may  be  impossible  to  guess.  But 
his  language  is  his  own,  and  there  is  some  chemistry 
of  life  in  it  that  belongs  only  to  him,  as  does  the  vital 
chemistry  of  his  body.  This  holds  of  every  writer,  who 
can  properly  be  called  a  living  soul.  If  he  be  a  dead 


BECOMES  INTELLIGIBLE. 


85 


soul,  or  one  that  is  coffined  in  mere  logic  and  uses,  then 
his  language,  being  dead,  will  be  like  all  other  dead  lan¬ 
guage  ;  lor  death  is  always  like  itself.  In  what  manner 
it  is,  that  words,  in  common,  ordinary  use — words  that 
have  been  staled  in  their  significance,  as  raisins  are  pre¬ 
served  in  their  own  sugar, — receive  a  new  inbreathing  of 
life  and  power,  it  is  impossible,  I  have  said,  to  explain. 
Pascal  cites,  for  illustration,  the  different  games  that  may 
be  played  with  the  same  tennis  balls,  which,  in  fact,  is 
only  appealing  to  death  and  chance  for  the  illustration  of 
life.  Better,  is  it,  to  conceive  the  spirit  of  the  author,  as 
living  in  his  words,  in  the  same  manner  as  Coleridge  con¬ 
ceives  the  spirit  of  his  country  living  in  its  outward 
sceneries  and  objects  : — 

“  I  had  found 

That  outward  forms,  the  loftiest,  still  receive 
Their  finer  influence  from  the  Life  within.” 

Accordingly,  it  is  the  right  of  every  author,  who 
deserves  attention  at  all,  to  claim  a  certain  liberty,  and 
even  to  have  it  for  a  merit  that  he  cannot  be  judged 
exactly  by  old  uses  and  formulas.  Life  is  organic  ;  and 
if  there  be  life  in  his  work,  it  will  be  found  not  in  some 
noun  or  verb  that  he  uses,  but  in  the  organic  whole  ot 
his  creations.  Hence,  it  is  clear  that  he  must  be  appre¬ 
hended  in  some  sense,  as  a  whole,  before  his  full  import 
can  be  received  in  paragraphs  and  sentences.  Until  then, 
he  will,  of  necessity,  appear  to  be  obscure,  enigmatical, 
extravagant,  or  even  absurd.  He  cannot  be  tested  by 
the  jingle  of  his  words,  or  by  auscultation  applied  to  the 

breathing  of  his  sentences.  No  decree  of  cond<  mnation 

8 


86 


HOW  AN  ORIGINAL  WRITER 


t 


must  be  passed  upon  him,  because  he  does  not  make 
himself  understood,  sentence  by  sentence ;  for,  if  he 
infuses  into  words  a  life-power  of  his  own,  or  does  more 
than  simply  to  recombine  old  impressions,  he  cannot 
make  himself  intelligible,  fully,  save  through  a  kind  of 
general  acquaintance.  It  may,  even,  be  to  his  praise, 
that  he  is  not  too  easily  understood.  For,  in  this  matter 
of  understanding,  two  things  are  requisite  ;  first,  a  matter 
which  is  understandable;  and,  second,  a  power  that  is  capa¬ 
ble  of  understanding  ;  and  if  there  be  some  things  offered, 
hard  to  be  understood,  then  there  must  be  a  power  of 
digestion  strong  enough  to  master  them ;  and  if,  in 
fault  of  that,  some  crude,  and  over-confident  sophister 
dangerously  wrests  the  words,  the  blame  is  with  him. 
Nor  is  it  enough,  in  such  a  case,  that  the  reading  man,  or 
public,  be  of  a  naturally  sound  mind,  or  even  that  they 
bring  to  the  subject,  capacities  of  a  very  high  order  ;  for 
words,  as  we  have  seen,  never  carry,  or  transfer  a 
thought ;  they  only  offer  hints  or  symbols,  to  put  others 
on  generating  the  same  thought,  which,  in  many  cases, 
they  are  not  likely  to  do,  unless  they  have  been  long 
enough  practiced  in  the  subject  discussed,  to  know  where 
it  lies ;  and  not  even  then,  if  the  writer  is  at  all  out 
of  the  system  of  his  day,  without  such  a  degree  of 
exercise  in  his  forms  of  thought  as  will  beget  a  certain 
genera  insight  of  his  method  and  symbol. 

They  cannot  run  to  a  dictionary,  and  draw  out  the 
shroud  of  an  old  meaning  from  that,  by  which  to  conceive, 
or  in  which  to  clothe  words  and  phrases  that  have  their 
vital  force,  in  no  small  part,  from  the  man  himself ;  and 
which,  therefore,  can  be  fully  urderstood  only  by  refer- 


BECOMES  INTELLIGIBLE. 


87 


ence  to  the  total  organism  of  which  they  are  memters. 
The  reading  man,  therefore,  before  he  thinks  to  judge  the 
writing  man,  must  first  endeavor  to  generate  the  writing 

man.  And  this,  without  supposing  any  defect  of  capacity 

% 

in  himself,  will  sometimes  be  difficult.  He  may  be  too 
young,  or  too  old  ;  having  too  little  breadth,  or  too  little 
flexibility,  to  make  a  sufficient  realization  of  the  truth 
presented.  It  costs  me  no  mortification,  to  confess  that 
the  most  fructifying  writer  I  ever  read,  was  one  in  whom 
I  was,  at  first,  able  only  to  see  glimpses,  or  gleams  of 
truth ;  one  whom  it  required  years  of  study  and  reflec¬ 
tion,  of  patient  suspension  and  laborious  self-questioning, 
to  be  able  fully  to  understand ;  and,  indeed,  whom  1 
never  since  have  read,  at  all,  save  in  a  chapter  or  two 
which  I  glanced  over,  just  to  see  how  obvious  and  clear, 
what  before  was  impossible,  had  now  become. 

Shall  I  dare  to  go  further  ?  Shall  I  say  that  of  all  the 
“clear”  writers  and  speakers  I  have  ever  met  with, — 
those,  I  mean,  who  are  praised  by  the  multitude  for  their 
transparency, — I  have  never  yet  found  one  that  was  able 
to  send  me  forward  an  inch  ;  or  one  that  was  really  true, 
save  in  a  certain  superficial,  or  pedagogical  sense,  as 
being  an  accurate  distributor  of  that  which  is  known. 
The  roots  of  the  known  are  always  in  the  unknown  , 
and,  if  a  man  will  never  show  the  root  of  any  thing,  if  he 
will  treat  of  the  known  as  separate  from  the  unknown, 
and  as  having  a  complete  knowledge  of  it,  which  he  has 
not — pretending,  still,  to  be  an  investigator,  and  to  exert 
an  obstetric  force,  when  he  is  only  handling  over  old 
knowledges  and  impressions — he  may  easily  enough  be 
clear.  Nothing,  in  fact,  is  easier,  if  one  is  either  <ible  1c 


88 


FACILITIES  U 


be  shallow,  or  willing  to  be  false.  He  is  clear,  because 
he  stands  out  before  the  infinite  and  the  unknown  ;  sepa¬ 
rated,  bounded  off*  [de-finite]  so  that  you  see  the  whole 
compass  of  his  head,  just  so  many  inches  in  diameter. 
But  the  writer,  who  is  to  help  us  on,  by  some  real 
advance  or  higher  revelation,  will,  for  that  reason,  be  less 
comprehensible,  and  offer  more  things  hard  to  be  under¬ 
stood.  He  will  be,  as  it  were,  a  face,  setting  out  from  a 
back  ground  of  mystery  ;  a  symbolism,  through  which  the 
infinite  and  the  unknown  are  looking  out  upon  us,  and  by 
kind  significances,  tempting  us  to  struggle  into  that 
holy,  but  dark  profound,  which  they  are  opening.  Of 
course,  we  are  not  to  make  a  merit  of  obscurity ;  for 
nothing  is  more  to  be  admired  than  the  wondrous  art 
by  which  some  men  are  able  to  propitiate  and  assist  the 
generative  understanding  of  others,  so  as  to  draw  them 
readily  into  higher  realizations  of  truth.  But  there  is  a 
limit,  we  must  acknowledge,  even  to  this  highest  power 
of  genius  ;  it  cannot  quite  create  a  soul  under  the  ribs  of 
death. 

Whatever  may  be  thought  of  these  suggestions,  for 
some,  I  suppose,  will  give  them  little  weight,  it  is  obvious 
that,  since  language  is  rather  an  instrument  of  suggestion, 
than  of  absolute  conveyance  for  thought,  since  it  acts 
suggestively,  through  symbols  held  up  in  the  words, 
which  symbols  and  words  are  never  exact  measures  of 
any  truth  (always  imputing  somewhat  of  form  to  the 
truth  which  does  not  belong  to  it,  always  somewhat 
contrary  to  each  other) — this  being  true,  it  is  obvious  that 
a  very  little  of  perverse  effort  expended  on  his  words, 
can  subject  a  writer  to  almost  any  degree  of  apparent 


PERVERSE  CRITICISM.  $9 

absurdity.  And,  what  is  specially  to  be  noticed,  there 
is  no  other  human  work,  in  which  so  much  of  applause 
can  be  gotten  at  so  cheap  a  rate,  and  with  so  small  a 
modicum  of  talent.  The  work,  indeed,  is  always  half 
done  beforehand.  The  words  are  ready  to  quarrel,  as 
soon  as  any  one  will  see  them,  and  nothing  is  necessary, 
in  fact,  but  to  play  off  a  little  of  constructive  ingenuity 
on  their  forms,  to  set  them  at  war  with  one  another  and 
the  whole  universe  besides.  And,  when  it  is  done,  many 
will  be  sure  to  admire  and  praise  what  they  call  the  pro¬ 
found  and  searching  logic  displayed.  Now,  the  truth  is, 
that  no  many-sided  writer,  no  one  who  embraces  all  the 
complementary  forces  of  truth,  is  ever  able  to  stand 
in  harmony  before  himself,  (such  is  the  nature  of  lan¬ 
guage,)  save  by  an  act  of  internal  construction  favorable 
to  himself,  and  preservative  of  his  mental  unity.  It 
follows,  of  necessity,  that  without  this  favorable  act 
of  construction  extended  to  his  words,  no  true  teacher 
can  be  saved  from  contradiction  and  confusion, — no  one, 
especially,  who  presents  more  than  a  half,  or  tenth  part 
of  a  truth.  Therefore,  every  writer,  not  manifestly 
actuated  by  a  malignant  or  evil  spirit,  is  entitled  to  this 
indulgence.  The  mind  must  be  offered  up  to  him,  for 
the  time,  with  a  certain  degree  of  sympathy.  It  must 
draw  itself  into  the  same  position  ;  take  his  constructions  ; 
feel  out,  so  to  speak,  his  meanings,  and  keep  him,  as  far 
as  may  be,  in  a  form  of  general  consistency.  Then, 
having  endeavored  thus,  and  for  a  sufficient  length  of 
time,  to  reproduce  him  or  his  thought,  that  is,  to  make  a 
realization  of  him,  some  proper  judgment  may  be  formed 

in  regard  to  the  soundness  of  his  doctrine. 

8* 


90 


FACILITIES  OF 


I  need  not  say  how  different  is  the  method  ordinarily 
pursued.  The  decision  is  an  off-hand  decision.  No 
time  is  allowed  to  cross-question  the  writer’s  representa¬ 
tions,  and  see  how  one  symbol  interprets,  qualifies,  and 
corrects  another.  First  impressions  are  sufficient  and 
infallible.  It  is  found  that  a  very  little  pressure  against 
the  harmony  of  words  and  phrases,  produces  woful  dis¬ 
cords  and  absurdities,  which  it  will  be  a  pleasant  proof  of 
superior  acumen  to  exhibit.  And  then,  as  a  vulture 
lighting  upon  a  lamb,  tears  out  some  member,  and  bears 
it  off,  screaming  over  the  prey,  as  if  he  were  saying, — 
See  how  absurdly  that  lamb  was  put  together !— so  we 
are  to  see  a  member  torn  out  here  or  there,  separated 
from  all  the  vital  connections  of  reason,  turned  about  in 
the  screws  of  constructive  logic,  properly  so  called,  and 
held  up  as  a  foolish  thing,  to  pity  or  derision  !  May  we 
not  believe,  that  when  the  nature  of  language,  as  an 
instrument  of  thought,  is  properly  understood,  this  vulture 
talent,  which  has  so  long  violated  the  delicate  integrity  of 
opinions,  and  the  sacred  rights  of  truth,  will  be  estimated 
according  to  its  dignity  ? 

It  needs  also  to  be  remarked,  in  this  connection,  that 
a  writer  is  not,  of  course,  to  be  blamed  because  he  is  vari- 
riously  interpreted  by  his  readers,  or  because  the  public 
masses  have  a  degree  of  difficulty  in  conceiving  his  pre 
cise  meaning.  It  should  be  so,  and  will  be,  if  he  has  any 
thing  of  real  moment  to  say.  There  has  always  been 
most  of  controversy,  for  this  reason,  about  the  meaning 
of  the  greatest  authors  and  teachers, — Plato,  for  example, 
and  Aristotle  ;  Bacon,  Shakspeare,  and  Goethe  ;  Job, 
Paul,  John,  and  especially  Christ  Himself.  What,  in 


PERVERSE  CRITICISM. 


91 


fact,  do  we  see,  in  the  endless  debate,  kept  up  for  these 
eighteen  hundred  years,  over  the  words  of  Jesus,  but  an 
illustration  of  the  truth,  that  infinitesimals,  though  there 
be  many  of  them,  are  not  the  best  judges  of  infinites. 
And  something  of  the  same  principle  pertains,  in  the 
judgment  or  inspection  of  merely  human  teachers. 
They  may  be  obscure,  not  from  weakness  only,  which, 
certainly,  is  most  frequent,  but  quite  as  truly  by  reason 
of  their  exceeding  breadth,  and  the  piercing  vigor  of  their 
insight.  And  when  this  latter  is  true,  as  it  sometimes 
may  be,  then  to  invoke  a  sentence  of  popular  condemna¬ 
tion,  because  the  writer  has  not  made  himself  perfectly 
intelligible,  or  clear  to  the  whole  public,  is,  in  fact,  to 
assist  or  instigate  the  multitude  in  practicing  a  fraud 
against  themselves.  And,  what  is  worse,  if  possible, 
it  encourages  an  ill-natured  and  really  unchristian  spirit 
in  them,  excusing  their  impatience  with  every  form  of 
teaching  that  requires  an  effort  of  candor,  or  an  ingenu¬ 
ous  spirit. 

16.  That  I  may  not  seem  to  be  offering  to  the  public, 
doctrines,  the  real  import  of  which  I  have  not  considered 
myself,  something  must  be  said  of  the  consequences  likely 
to  result  to  religion,  from  the  admission  of  views  such  as 
I  have  here  presented.  Only,  be  it  observed,  that  their 
truth  depends,  in  no  degree,  on  any  expectations  of  good, 
or  any  vaticinations  of  evil,  which  the  faith  of  one, 
or  the  panic  of  another  may  raise. 

Unquestionably,  the  view  of  language  here  presented 
must  produce,  if  received,  a  decided  mitigation  of  oui 
dogmatic  tendencies  in  religion.  It  throws  a  heavy 


92 


EFFECTS  OF  A  RIGHT  VIEW. 


shade  of  discouragement  on  our  efforts  in  this  direc¬ 
tion.  It  shows  that  language  is,  probably,  incapable  of 
any  such  definite  and  determinate  use  as  we  have 
supposed  it  to  have  in  our  theological  speculations  ;  that, 
lor  this  reason,  dogma  has  failed  hitherto,  and  about 
as  certainly  will  hereafter  Taking  away,  thus,  the 
confidence  of  the  speculative  theologer,  it  will  limit,  pro¬ 
portionally,  his  eagerness.  It  will,  also,  reduce  the  very 
excessive  eminence  he  has,  at  present,  in  the  public 
estimation,  requiring  a  re-adjustment  of  the  scale  that 
now  pertains  between  this  and  the  historical,  literary, 
and  practical  departments  of  Christian  study.  Or,  better 
still,  showing  that  the  advancement  and  the  real  amount 
of  true  theology  depends,  not  on  logical  deductions  and 
systematic  solutions,  but  principally  on  the  more  culti¬ 
vated  and  nicer  apprehension  of  symbol,  it  may  turn  the 
industry  of  our  teachers  more  in  this  direction,  giving  a 
more  esthetic  character  to  their  studies  and  theories,  and 
drawing  them  as  much  closer  to  the  practical  life  of 
religion. 

Without  being  at  all  aware  of  the  fact,  as  it  would 
seem,  our  theologic  method  in  New  England  has  been 
essentially  rationalistic  ;  though  not  exactly  in  the  Ger¬ 
man  sense.  The  possibility  of  reasoning  out  religion, 
though  denied  in  words,  has  yet  been  tacitly  assumed. 
Not  allowing  ourselves  to  be  rationalists  over  the  scrip¬ 
tures,  we  have  yet  been  as  active  and  confident  ration- 
alists  under  them,  as  it  was  possible  to  be — assuming, 
always,  that  they  address  their  contents  to  the  systematic, 
speculative  reason  of  men,  into  which  they  are  to  be 
received,  and  by  which  they  are  to  be  digested  into 


OF  LANGUAGE. 


93 


foimulas — when  they  are  ready  for  use.  We  have  had 
a  certain  negative  way  of  declaring  against  the  compe¬ 
tence  of  the  natural  man  to  understand  spiritual  things, 
but  it  has  been  done  principally  in  that  way  only,  and  as 
a  convenient  method  of  cutting  off  speculative  arguments 
that  could  not  be  speculatively  answered.  It  has  not 
been  held,  as  a  practical,  positive,  and  earnest  Christian 
truth,  that  there  is  a  Perceptive  Power  in  spiritual  life, 
an  unction  of  the  Holy  One,  which  is  itself  a  kind  of 
inspiration — an  immediate,  experimental  knowledge  of 
God,  by  virtue  of  which,  and  partly  in  the  degree  of 
which,  Christian  theology  is  possible.  No  real  doubt  has 
been  held  of  the  perfect  sufficiency  of  formulas ;  or  of 
natural  logic,  handled  by  the  natural  understanding,  to 
settle  them.  The  views  of  language,  here  offered,  lead 
to  a  different  method.  The  scriptures  will  be  more 
studied  than  they  have  been,  and  in  a  different  manner — 
not  as  a  magazine  of  propositions  and  mere  dialectic 
entities,  but  as  inspirations  and  poetic  forms  of  life ; 
requiring,  also,  divine  inbreathings  and  exaltations  in  us, 
that  we  may  ascend  into  their  meaning.  Our  opinions 
will  be  less  catechetical  and  definite,  using  the  word 
as  our  definers  do,  but  they  will  be  as  much  broader  as 
they  are  more  divine ;  as  much  truer,  as  they  are  more  vita] 
and  closer  to  the  plastic,  undefinable  mystery  of  spiritual 
life/  We  shall  seem  to  understand  less,  and  shall  actually 
receive  more.  No  false  pre-cision,  which  the  nature  and 
conditions  of  spiritual  truth  forbid,  will,  by  cutting  up  the 
body  of  truth  into  definite  and  dead  morsels,  throw  us 
into  states  of  excision  and  division,  equally  manifold. 
We  shall  receive  the  truth  of  God  in  a  more  entire 


94 


EFFECTS  OF  A  RIGHT  VIEW 


organic  and  organific,  manner,  as  being  itself  an  essen¬ 
tially  vital  power.  It  will  not  be  our  endeavor  to  pull 
the  truth  into  analytic  distinctions,  as  if  theology  were  a 
kind  of  inorganic  chemistry,  and  the  last  end  of  discovery 
an  atomic  theory ;  but  we  shall  delight  in  truth,  more 
as  a  concrete,  vital  nature,  incarnated  in  all  fact 
and  symbol  round  us — a  vast,  mysterious,  incompre¬ 
hensible  power,  which  best  we  know,  when  most  we 
love. 

Striving  ever  outward,  towards  the  infinite,  and  not 
inward  or  downward,  upon  speculative  minima  or  atoms, 
we  shall  be  kept  in  a  humbler,  and  far  less  positive  state 
of  mind.  Our  judgments  of  others  will  be  less  peremp¬ 
tory,  and,  as  we  are  more  modest,  we  shall  be  as  much 
more  patient  and  charitable.  And  our  views  of  language, 
as  an  instrument  wholly  inadequate  to  the  exact  repre¬ 
sentation  of  thought,  will  operate,  immediately,  to  favor 
the  same  result. 

If  any  should  be  apprehensive  that  the  views  here 
offered  may  bring  in  an  age  of  mysticism,  and  so  of 
interminable  confusion,  they  will  greatly  misconceive 
their  import,  and  also  the  nature  of  mysticism  itself. 
A  mystic  is  one  who  finds  a  secret  meaning,  both  in 
words  and  in  things,  back  of  their  common  or  accepted 
meaning — some  agency  of  Life,  or  Living  Thought, 
hid  under  the  forms  of  words  and  institutions,  and 
historical  events.  Hence,  all  religious  writers  and 
teachers,  who  dwell  on  file  representative  character  ot 
words  ana  things,  or  hold  the  truths  of  religion,  not  in 
mechanical  measures  and  relations,  but  as  forms  of  life, 
are  so  far  mystics.  Thus  Neander  gives  it,  as  a  charac 


OF  LANGUAGE. 


95 


teristic  of  the  apostle  John, — “  that  a  reference  to  com¬ 
munion  with  the  Redeemer,  in  the  inward  life,  and  in 
the  present,  predominates  over  the  reference  to  the 
future,  and  to  outward  facts  ;  he  dwells  upon  the  elements 
of  the  inner  life,  the  facts  of  Christian  consciousness,  and 
only  slightly  adverts  to  outward  matters  of  fact  and 
ecclesiastical  arrangements.  In  accordance  with  this 
spirit, ,  he  exhibits  all  the  particular  incidents  in  the 
outward  history  of  Christ,  only  as  a  manifestation  of  his 
indwelling  glory,  by  which  this  may  be  brought  home  to 
the  heart ;  he  always  avails  himself  of  these  narratives, 
to  ntroduce  what  the  Redeemer  declared,  respecting  his 
relation  to  mankind,  as  the  source  of  life.  John  is  the 
representative  of  the  truth  which  lies  at  the  basis  of  that 
tendency  of  the  Christian  spirit,  which  sets  itself  in 
opposition  to  a  one-sided  intellectualism,  and  ecclesiasti¬ 
cal  formality — and  is  distinguished  by  the  name  of 
mysticism.” 

I  make  no  disavowal,  then,  of  the  fact,  that  there  is 
a  mystic  element,  as  there  should  be,  in  what  I  have 
represented  as  the  source  of  meaning  in  language,  and, 
also,  in  the  views  of  Christian  life  and  doctrine,  that 
follow.  Man  is  designed,  in  his  very  nature,  to  be  a 
partially  mystic  being ;  the  world  to  be  looked  upon  as  a 
mystic  world.  Christ  himself  revealed  a  decidedly  mystic 
element  in  his  teachings,  There  is  something  of  a  mystic 
quality  in  almost  every  writing  of  the  New  Testament. 
Jn  John,  it  is  a  character.  In  “  the  dialectic”  Paul, 
there  are  very  many  passages  quite  as  mystical  as  any 
in  John. 

Now,  the  very  cautious  and  salutary  scepticism  I  ha^e 


90 


EFFECTS  OF  A  RIGHT  VIEW. 


maintained,  concerning  the  insufficiency  and  the  partially 
repugnant  character  of  words,  leaves  as  little  room  as 
possible  to  apprehend  any  danger  of  wildness,  or  con¬ 
fusion  from  the  entrance  of  a  mystic  element,  thus 
qualified  and  guarded.  There  is  nothing,  in  fact,  that 
we  so  much  need,  as  an  apostle  John  among  our  other 
apostles ;  and  I  fervently  hope  that  God  will  sometime 
send  us  such  a  gift.  The  very  last  thing  to  be  feared  is, 
that  our  loss-and-gain  style  of  religion,  the  stern,  iron- 
limbed  speculative  logic  of  our  New  England  theology, 
will  receive  some  fatal  damage  from  a  trace  of  the  mystic 
element.  It  will  produce  no  overturnings,  sap  no  founda¬ 
tions,  dissolve  no  formulas,  run  to  no  license  or  extrava¬ 
gance.  It  will  enter  only  as  life  came  into  the  bones  ; 
which,  though  they  rose  up  into  a  limbered  and  active 
state,  and  were  hidden  somewhat  from  the  eye,  by  an 
envelop  of  muscle  and  skin,  were  yet  as  good  bones 
as  before  ;  probably  as  much  better  and  more  systematic, 
as  there  was  more  of  the  life-order  in  them  and  about 
them. 

The  two  principal  results,  then,  which  I  suppose  may 
follow,  should  these  views  of  language  be  allowed  to  have 
their  effect  in  our  theology,  are  a  more  comprehensive, 
friendly,  and  fraternal  state,  than  now  exists  between 
different  families  of  Christians  ;  and,  as  the  confidence  of 
dogma  is  mitigated,  a  more  present,  powerful,  and  univer¬ 
sal  conviction  entering  into  the  Christian  body,  that 
truth,  in  its  highest  and  freest  forms,  is  not  of  the  natural 
understanding,  but  is,  rather,  as  Christ  himself  declared — 
spirit  and  life.  We  shall  have  more  of  union,  therefore, 


OF  LANGUAGE. 


9: 


and  more  of  true  piety  enlightened  by  the  spirit  of  God 
• — neither  of  which  involves  any  harm  or  danger. 


The  ‘Discourses’  which  follow,  are  already  known  to 
the  public  ;  for  a  somewhat  evil  notoriety  appears  to 
have  gone  before  them.  In  their  publication,  however, 
I  suffer  no  anxiety  for  the  result.  I  can  only  wish  that 
my  readers  may  be  candid  enough  to  be  just,  and  patient 
enough  to  withhold  their  judgment  till  they  have  become 
fully  possessed  of  my  meaning ;  or,  if  that  be  too  much,  till 
they  have  sufficiently  ascertained  that  I  have  no  intelli¬ 
gent  meaning.  Whatever  sentence  they  may  pass  upon 
my  views  and  arguments,  they  will  look  in  vain,  I  am 
quite  sure,  for  any  such  substantial  aberrations  in  Chris¬ 
tian  doctrine  as  could  properly  excite  the  alarm,  or  pro¬ 
voke  the  sensitiveness,  known  to  have  been  suffered  by 
many  on  my  account.  Indeed,  I  think  it  will  be  more 
and  more  a  mystery  to  them,  how  it  came  to  pass  that  I 
was  able,  in  so  innocent  a  way,  to  awaken  so  much  of 
painful  concern — a  mystery  which,  probably,  they  will 
have  little  success  in  solving,  unless  they  remember  that 
I  dared  to  preach,  on  invitation,  as  I  supposed  my  Master 
also  would,  before  the  Divinity  School  at  Cambridge. 

I  suppose  it  is  proper  to  say,  that  I  did  not  prepare 
the  occasions,  on  which  these  ‘  Discourses’  were  delivered, 
and  seem  scarcely  to  have  chosen  the  subjects  them¬ 
selves.  Indeed,  I  seem,  too,  as  regards  the  views  pre¬ 
sented,  to  have  had  only  about  the  same  agency  in 

9 


98 


INTRODl CTORY. 


forming  them,  that  I  have  in  preparing  the  blood  I  circu¬ 
late,  and  the  anatomic  frame  I  occupy.  They  are  not 
my  choice,  or  invention,  so  much  as  a  necessary  growth, 
whose  process  I  can  hardly  trace  myself.  And  now,  in 
giving  them  to  the  public,  I  seem  only  to  have  about  the 
same  kind  of  option  left  me  that  I  have  in  the  matter  of 
appearing  in  corporal  manifestation  myself, — about  the 
same  anxiety,  I  will  add,  concerning  the  unfavorable 
judgments  to  be  encountered ;  for  though  a  man’s 
opinions  are  of  vastly  greater  moment  than  his  looks,  yet, 
if  he  is  equally  simple  in  them,  as  in  his  growth,  and 
equally  subject  to  his  law,  he  is  responsible  only  in  the 
same  degree,  and  ought  not,  in  fact,  to  suffer  any  greater 
concern  about  their  reception,  than  about  the  judg- 
.  ments  passed  upon  his  person. 

I  say  this,  not  as  disrespecting  or  undervaluing  the 
good  opinions  of  others ;  for  it  would  be  more  agreeable, 
I  confess,  to  have  my  thoughts  received  with  favor, 
especially  by  wise  and  candid  Christian  men.  I  only 
speak  in  this  manner,  because  of  the  very  great  happiness 
and  repose  it  gives  me  to  feel  that,  in  everything  per¬ 
taining  to  these  *  Discourses,’  I  seem  to  have  exerted  so 
little  choice  for  myself;  to  have  been  called  for,  to  have  had 
my  themes  appointed,  to  have  spoken  what  was  in  me  to 
say,  and  what  alone  I  was  able.  If,  in  yielding  thus  to  the 
lead  of  some  higher  necessity,  I  have  really  been  yielding 
as  to  fate  or  destiny,  it  is  not  well ;  if,  as  to  Providence, 
is  it  superstition  to  hope,  that  .he  Being,  whose  way  it  is 
to  bring  the  highest  things  :mto  combination,  by  the 
mediation  of  the  humblest,  wno  appoints  that  even  the 
pith-ball,  by  its  play,  shall  interpret  the  current  of  his 


INTRODUCTORY. 


99 


thunders,  may  have  some  comprehensive  design  prepar¬ 
ing,  in  reference  to  the  sundered  churches  of  New 
England,  as  an  introductory  to  which,  the  peculiar  com¬ 
binations  touched  in  these  ‘  Discourses/  if  not  their 
spirit  or  doctrine,  may  have  some  fit  relation. 

The  first  two  of  the  ‘Discourses/  and,  in  a  less 
immediate,  but  more  fundamental  sense,  the  third,  also, 
relate  to  matters  in  issue  between  us  and  the  Unitarians. 
I  am  not  aware  that  I  have  surrendered  any  truth  to 
them — that  is,  anything  which  is  truth  to  me.  If  I  have 
surrendered  some  other  man’s  truth,  he  must  reclaim  it 
for  himself.  Notwithstanding  the  profound  sympathy, 
and  the  real  respect  I  have  always  felt  for  the  Unitarians, 
a  sympathy  and  respect  grounded,  I  will  add,  in  a  par¬ 
ticipation  of  similar  difficulties ;  though  I  do  not,  for 
the  same  reason,  feel  the  extreme  horror  of  their  persons, 
sometimes  manifested ;  I  am,  probably,  as  far  from  being 
in  any  mood  of  surrender  to  them,  as  could  be  desired  by 
the  stiffest  champion  of  orthodoxy.  It  is  my  settled  con¬ 
viction,  a  conviction  not  the  less  firmly  held  because  it  is 
deliberately  formed,  that  to  escape  certain  scholastic  and 
dogmatic  forms  of  orthodoxy,  they  have  so  far  renounced, 
or  obscured  many  great  Christian  truths,  pertaining  to 
the  trinity,  the  person  of  Christ,  depravity,  regenera¬ 
tion  and  the  Spirit  of  God  as  a  supernatural  grace,  that 
what  I  should  call  the  tone  or  tonic  energy  of  the  gospel  is 
lost.  And,  were  it  not  for  the  ingenuous  spirit  of  self¬ 
correction  they  so  often  manifest,  and  especially  for  the 
earnestness  with  which  many  are  now  applying  them¬ 
selves,  to  discover  the  errors  and  readjust  the  principles 
of  their  system,  I  should  suppose  they  might  be  doomed 


100 


INTRODUCTORY. 


to  sink  into  a  typhoid  state,  and,  finally,  to  die.  At  fiist 
their  movement  could  not  reveal  its  inherent  defects 
for  both  ministers  and  people,  growing  up  under  ortho¬ 
doxy,  with  a  high  religious  tone  produced  in  their 
nature,  by  the  resonant  and  somewhat  brassy  energies 
of  Calvinism,  were  likely  to  suppose  a  degree  of 
quality  in  their  system,  which  it  really  had  not.  But, 
as  a  true  Cremona  cannot  be  made  out  of  green  wood,  or 
any  but  some  ancient  timber  curiously  selected,  and 
found  to  have  been  rightly  moved  by  the  rhythmic  sweep 
of  winds  and  storms,  so  they  are  likely  at  last  to  find,  as 
they  are  withdrawn  to  receive  more  exclusively  the 
proper  consequences  of  their  system,  that  it  fails  to 
impart  to  those  who  grow  up  under  it  from  childhood, 
that  deep  vibratory  sen&;°.  of  religion,  which  is  needful  to 
its  volume  and  power.  It  may  be  found,  that  a  third 
generation  is  more  deficient  than  the  second.  Possibly 
it  may,  also,  be  found,  as  a  general  truth,  on  adverting  to 
the  past,  that  their  most  earnest  and  stirring  preachers, 
those  who  have  had  the  deepest  convictions,  and  most  of 
that  sonorous  quality  which  rings  conviction  into  others, 
were  persons  who  came  out  from  orthodoxy,  not  those 
who  had  been  trained  up  in  the  vernacular  of  Unita- 
rianism. 

I  may  be  wrong  in  the  estimate  indicated  by  these 
suggestions ;  it  is,  nevertheless,  such  as  my  own  inquiries 
and  reflections  have  forced  upon  me.  And  as  I  speak  in 
this  manner  not  to  judge  them,  but  simply  to  indicate  my 
own  position,  they  will  deem  it  no  offence.  Meantime, 
let  us  be  ready  to  accept,  in  good  nature,  any  counter 
convictions,  by  which  they  will  expose,  with  equal 


INTRODUCTORY. 


101 


frankness,  their  sense  of  errors  and  deficiencies  existing 
in  us ;  not  objecting,  if  it  should  also'be  made  to  appear, 
that  Unitarianism  was  raised  up  as  a  necessary  antag¬ 
onism  and  corrective  to  these  precise  errors  and  defects. 

Actuated  by  views  like  these,  it  will  be  seen,  clearly 
enough,  that  I  am  in  no  mood  of  surrender  to  Unita¬ 
rianism.  I  suppose,  indeed,  observing  the  ordinary 
method  of  such  changes,  that  I  am  really  less  likely  to 
undergo  the  conversion  I  speak  of,  than  nineteen  twen¬ 
tieths  of  our  orthodox  teachers,  including  those,  especially, 
who  are  most  alarmed,  and  who  suffer,  just  now,  the 
deepest  nervous  horror  on  my  account.  It  is  proper, 
also,  to  say,  that  I  have  no  thought,  in  the  discussion 
that  follows,  or  in  the  views  maintained,  of  proposing  any 
composition,  or  compromise,  with  the  Unitarians.  I 
have  no  confidence  in  any  organic  and  combined  effort 
of  pacification  between  us.  If  we  are  ever  re-united,  it 
will  be  by  a  gradual  and  natural  process,  working  in 
individual  minds.  We  must  think  ourselves  together, 
not  as  fixing  our  minds  on  some  halfway  place,  where 
we  may  meet,  but  simply  as  striving  after  the  divine 
verities  of  the  gospel,  and  the  unity  of  the  spirit.  This 
only  is  my  aim,  in  the  ‘Discourses*  that  follow.  Not  one 
doctrine  or  sentiment,  here  offered,  has  been  adjusted 
with  a  view  to  conciliation.  Nothing  is  advanced,  wdiich 
I  did  not  hold  before  the  preparing  of  these  *  Discourses  ;* 
nothing,  in  fact,  which  I  had  not  held  for  substance,  ever 
since  my  entrance  into  the  ministry ;  except  that,  under  the 
atonement,  I  had  just  been  able  to  bring  together  into 
one  view,  elements  which  I  had  before  held  separately, 
and  without  perceiving  the  mode  of  their  agreement.  If 

9* 


102 


INTRODUCTORY. 


I  seem  to  be  throwing  doctrines  into  a  shape  that  may 
accommodate  their  difficulties,  I  had  done  it  before  to 
accommodate  my  own.  If  I  speak  of  them  in  terms  of 
patience  and  sympathy,  if  I  handle  their  views  with 
candor,  this  may  be  my  sin.  When  I  discover  it  to  be 
so,  I  hope  I  may  have  grace  to  repent  of  it. 

There  is  an  intimate,  or  interior  connection,  it  will  be 
seen,  between  all  these  ‘Discourses,’  and  the  views  of  lan¬ 
guage  presented  in  this  ‘  Preliminary  Dissertation.’  I 
must,  therefore,  be  allowed  to  request,  that  this  ‘  Disserta¬ 
tion’  may  receive  a  little  more  attention  than  is  ordinarily 
given  to  Introductions.  For,  if  these  views  of  language 
have  been  historically  introductory  to  me,  it  is  hardly 
possible  that  others  will  enter  fully  into  my  positions, 
without  any  introduction  at  all. 

I  have  given  a  view  or  solution  of  the  Incarnation  and 
the  Trinity,  which  puts  them  on  the  same  footing,  in 
fact,  with  all  language  of  thought  or  spirit.  They  offer 
God,  not  so  much  to  the  reason,  or  logical  understanding, 
\  as  to  the  imagination  and  the  perceptive,  or  esthetic  appre¬ 
hension  of  faith.  Then,  also,  their  contrarious,  or 
logically  insoluble  matter  is  to  be  handled  in  the  same 
way,  as  that  of  all  language,  when  applied  to  thought. 
And  if  I  seem,  in  this,  to  assert  the  unreality  of  the  incar¬ 
nation  and  the  trinity,  or  to  make  a  mere  shadow  or 
figment  of  it,  the  reality  of  language,  I  answer,  is  not  in 
the  vocal  names,  or  sounds,  but  in  the  solid  things,  or 
physical  images  they  represent ;  and  there,  too,  I  ought 
to  add,  not  in  their  material  solidity,  but  in  the  signifi¬ 
cances  which  the  Divine  Word  has  insensed  in  them,  or 
imparted  to  them.  Accordingly,  as  the  reality  of  the 


INTRODUCTORY. 


10c 

world  is  what  it  is  to  thought  and  the  uses  of  the  soul, 
not  what  it  is  to  mere  hammers  and  axes,  the  incarnation 
and  the  trinity  are  just  as  real  and  historical  as  the 
world  is. 

Similar  objections  have  been  offered  to  the  represent¬ 
ation  I  have  given  of  the  atonement.  To  some  Unita¬ 
rians,  what  I  called  the  “  objective  view,”  seemed,  I 
believe,  to  be  only  a  fetch,  to  save  the  orthodoxy  of  my 
position.  To  some  of  my  orthodox  friends,  on  the  other 
hand,  it  seemed  equally  unreal,  because  it  only  made 
a  sacrifice,  objectively,  of  that  which,  taken  subjectively, 
is  simply  a  truth  and  a  power  ;  neither  party  observing 
that  the  life  and  death  of  Christ  become  most  thoroughly 
real,  most  truly  powerful,  only  when  they  are  offered  to 
the  mind  in  this  Objective  Form.  Whereas,  it  is,  if  I  am 
right,  the  very  art  and  philosophy  of  God’s  redemptive 
plan,  that  He  prepares  a  language  and  objective  form  for 
Christ,  by  a  long  historic  process,  instituted,  in  great  part, 
for  this  very  purpose.  The  grace  of  Christ  being  wholly 
supernatural,  there  were,  of  course,  no  sufficient  bases  ol 
words  in  nature,  to  represent  or  adequately  to  convey 
it.  Hence,  it  was  necessary  to  prepare,  by  an  artificial 
process,  new  types  of  words,  that  should  serve  this 
sacred  use.  This  is  done  in  and  through  the  sacrificial 
system  of  the  Old  Testament.  These  sacrifices  served 
as  a  ritual,  or  liturgic  exercise  for  the  time  then  present, 
and  then,  taken  as  forms  wrought  into  the  Jewish  mind, 
and,  indeed,  into  the  mind  of  the  whole  world,  they  were 
ready  for  a  higher  use,  in  what  I  have  called  the  second 
department  of  language — ready  to  be  employed  as  bases 
of  words,  and  vehicles,  thus,  of  the  spiritual  truths  of  the 


104 


INI RODUCTORY. 


New  Testament.  It  is  not,  as  we  all  know  perfectly 
well,  that  Christ  was  a  physical  sacrifice,  offered  by  fire 
upon  an  altar,  not  that  he  was  a  lamb,  not  that  his 
blood  was  sprinkled  by  any  priest,  not  that  there  was  any 
confession  of  sins  upon  his  head,  and  yet  all  these  terms, 
which  are  names  of  mere  physical  act  and  proceeding, 
are  prepared  with  an  art,  none  of  us  can  perfectly 
fathom,  to  be  the  Form  of  Christ  and  his  truth.  In 
him  they  are  ‘‘fulfilled”  as  he  himself  represented. 
And,  in  that  view,  when  presented  to  us  in  the  forms  of 
the  altar,  he  is  a  more  real  sacrifice  than  the  sacrifice,  a 
more  real  lamb,  than  the  lamb.  Nor  is  anything  more 
clear  to  me,  than  that  any  class  of  Christians,  who 
undertake,  as  avoiding  cant,  or  as  being  more  philosophi¬ 
cal,  to  get  rid  of  the  Altar  Form,  and  present  the 
Saviour’s  death  in  terms  of  mere  natural  language,  will 
make  full  proof,  in  the  end,  that  the  foolishness  of  God  is 
wiser  than  men. 

In  this  matter  of  trinity  and  atonement,  though  I  am 
as  far  as  possible  from  all  mere  phantasm  or  allegory, 
adhering  strictly  to  the  historic  verity  of  the  scripture 
representations,  I  seem  to  encounter  the  same  difficulty 
with  poor  Bunyan,  when  he  consults  his  friends  in 
regard  tc  the  publication  of  his  ‘  Pilgrim.’  Many  prophesy 
(hat  his  book  will  not  “stand  when  soundly  tried” — 
(that  is,  I  suppose,  when  tried  by  the  dialectic  methods 
of  speculative  theology) — they  are  specially  scandalized 
by  the  light,  imaginative  air  of  his  book,  and  ted  him 
that  his  words  “  want  solidness ” — “  metaphors  make  us 
blind.”  But  he  rallies  courage  to  say,  and  his  reply  is 
even  more  to  the  point  for  me  than  for  him  : — 


INTRODUCTORY. 


105 


“  But  must  I  needs  want  solidness,  t»  cause 
By  metaphors  I  speak  1  Were  not  God’s  laws, 

His  gospel  laws,  in  olden  time,  held  forth 

By  Shadows,  Types,  and  Metaphors  'l  Yet  loth 

Will  any  sober  man  be,  to  find  fault 

With  them,  lest  he  be  found  for  to  assault 

The  highest  wisdom  !  No,  he  ratner  stoops 

And  seeks  to  find  out  by  what  ‘  Pins’  and  ‘  Loops,’ 

By  ‘  Calves’  and  1  Sheep,’  by  ‘  Heifers’  and  by  ‘  Rams,’ 
By  1  Birds’  and  ‘  Herbs,’  and  by  the  blood  of  ‘  Lambs,’ 
God  speaketh  to  him ;  and  happy  is  he 
That  finds  the  light  and  grace  that  in  them  be.” 


The  world,  I  need  not  add,  has  finally  verified  his  judg¬ 
ment  to  the  full.  No  man  complains  of  this  Pilgrim’s 
Progress  that  it  wants  4  solidness.’  By  this  wonderful 
book,  it  has  been  proved  to  the  judgment  of  all  Christian 
men,  that  right  words  and  forms  offered  to  the  imagina¬ 
tion,  have  really  more  of  solidity  and  true  moment  than 
any  which  can  be  offered  to  the  logical  understanding. 
And  if  this  be  true  of  a  mere  Allegory,  how  much  more 
of  a  History  prepared  with  manifold  greater  skill,  to  set 
forth  God  and  His  love  in  forms  of  life  and  feeling  before 
the  imaginative  sense  of  our  race.  Shall  we  judge  that 
there  is  no  proper  reality  in  it,  till  we  have  put  out  the 
fire,  cut  short  the  freedom,  brought  down  all  the  living 
forms  to  be  handled  and  shaped  into  wooden  dogmas  by 
the  hand  of  our  constructive  logic  ?  Here,  again,  says 
Bunyan,  giving  us  even  a  raster  truth  than  he  himself 
supposed,  and  one  that  is  worthy  to  be  specially  medi¬ 
tated  by  all  abstractionists  and  system-mongers  : 


“  All  things  solid  in  show,  not  solid  be.” 


106 


INTRODUCTORY. 


Nothing,  in  fact,  is  so  unsolid,  many  times — no  fig¬ 
ment  so  vacant  of  meaning  as  that  dead  body  of  abstrac¬ 
tions,  or  logical  propositions,  called  theology  ;  which,  pro¬ 
fessing  to  give  us  the  contents  of  God’s  truth,  puts  us  off, 
toe  generally,  with  the  mere  exuviae  of  reason  ;  which 
extinguishes  the  living  fires  of  truth  to  show  us  the 
figures  it  can  draw  in  the  ashes. 

I  speak  in  this  manner,  not  as  interposing  a  caveat 
against  the  speculative  objections  that  may  be  raised 
against  my  4  Discourses/  I  am  perfectly  well  aware  that 
my  readers  can  run  me  into  just  what  absurdity  they 
please.  Nothing  is  more  easy.  I  suppose  it  might  be 
almost  as  easy  for  me  to  do  it  as  for  them.  Indeed,  I  seem 
to  have  the  whole  argument  which  a  certain  class  of 
speculators  must  raise  upon  my  ‘  Discourses,’  in  order  to 
be  characteristic,  fully  before  me.  I  see  the  words 
footing  it  along  to  their  conclusions.  I  see  the  terrible 
syllogisms  wheeling  out  their  infantry  upon  my  fallacies 
and  absurdities.  Indeed,  I  have  thought  that  I  might 
possibly  win  some  laurels  by  an  anonymous  attack  of  this 
kind  upon  myself. 

I  should  take  no  notice,  in  such  an  attempt,  of  the 
representation  that  trinity  and  atonement  belong  to  the 
sphere  of  expression,  not  to  the  sphere  of  logic.  Though 
the  declaration  is  that  they  are  forms  of  truth  which 
have  their  reality  in  and  through  the  imaginative  and 
morally  aesthetic  powers — truths  of  form  and  feeling,  not  of 
the  logical  understanding — I  would  silently  change  the 
venue,  and  bring  on  the  trial  before  this  latter  tribunal 
somewhat  as  follows  : — 

“  Dr.  B.  says  that  the  trimty  is  involved  in  the  process 


INTRODUCTORY. 


1(T 

of  revelation — that  the  Absolute  Being  becomes  Fathei 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  in  the  way  of  communicating  him 
self  to  knowledge.  God,  then,  is  really  One,  and  appa¬ 
rently  Three ;  that  is,  the  trinity  is  a  false  appearance ! 

God,  also,  is  an  impassible  being.  Christ  suffers.  If, 
then,  Christ  is  God,  it  follows  that  he  suffers  on.ly  in 
appearance ;  that  is,  that  his  suffering  is  a  false  appear¬ 
ance  ! 

In  the  great  work  of  redemption,  the  Father  is  the 
Son  whom  he  sends — the  Son,  the  Father  who  sent  him. 
Being  both  Father  and  Son,  he  prays  to  himself,  submits 
to  his  own  will,  offers  an  atonement  to  himself,  and 
ascends,  at  last,  to  his  own  bosom,  to  gather  in  those 
whom  he  gave  to  himself,  before  the  world  began ! 

Meantime,  as  God  cannot  die,  there  is  really  no  death 
in  the  case  ;  it  is  all  a  vain  show ! 

And,  again,  as  Christ  is  not  the  Absolute  God,  save  in 
a  representative  sense,  God  is  really  not  in  the  transac¬ 
tion  any  where.  It  is  a  transaction  of  nobody,  or  rather 
between  three  nobodies !” 

“A  most  legitimate  answer!  a  most  rigid  and  fatal 
refutation !”  I  suppose  many  will  say,  “  of  the  whole 
doctrine  of  my  ‘  Discourses/  ”  Very  well,  be  it  so. 
Then  it  is,  at  least,  clear  that  I  know  how  to  reason  cor¬ 
rectly.  Be  it  so,  I  say,  but  if  only  I  can  get  my  readers 
to  go  down  with  me  into  the  real  view  of  my  ‘  Dis¬ 
courses,’  and  of  this  ‘Preliminary  Dissertation,’  I  am 
quite  wilfng  to  risk  their  opinion  of  the  puerility  and 
shallowness  of  all  such  constructive  sophistries. 

Or,  if  still  they  seem  to  be  true  and  legitimate  argu¬ 
ments,  I  will  simply  ask  it  of  my  reader — (1.)  To  invent 


108 


INTR  <!  D  U  C  T  ORY. 


some  method  by  which  the  Infinite  and  Absolute  can 
appear  in  the  finite,  or  the  forms  of  the  finite,  without 
involving  all  the  logical  absurdities  here  perceived. 
(2.)  To  observe  that  all  the  terms  of  language,  applied 
to  matters  of  thought  and  spirit,  involved  originally  the 
same  contradictious  results,  and  do  so  now  to  a  very 
considerable  extent,  only  in  a  more  latent  manner. 
(3.)  To  notice  that  there  may  be  solid,  living,  really  con¬ 
sistent  truth  in  the  views  I  have  offered,  considering  the 
trinity  and  atonement  as  addressed  to  feeling  and  imagi¬ 
nation,  when,  considered  as  addressed  to  logic,  there  is 
only  absurdity  and  confusion  in  them.  (4.)  To  notice 
that  the  more  common  orthodox  views  of  trinity  an 
atonement,  if  any  one  can  settle  what  they  are,  involve 
all  the  contrarieties  and  absurdities  just  set  forth,  with 
the  disadvantage,  that  being  held  as  truths  of  dogma,  the 
absurdities  and  contrarieties  are  real,  and  suffer  no  ex¬ 
plication. 

And  here,  exactly,  is  the  field  in  which  Unitarianism 
has  luxuriated.  It  had  everything  made  ready ;  it  was 
called  for,  sent  for,  to  come  up  from  the  vasty  deep,  or 
somewhere  else,  and  clear  away  this  dialectic  rubbish 
and  confusion. 

It  began  by  saying,  what  is  quite  intelligible — that  one 
is  one,  and  three  are  three.  If,  then,  the  Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Ghost  are  each  God  in  himself,  and  all  God 
together,  then  there  must,  of  necessity,  be  two  sorts  of 
Gods ;  cne  sort,  or  grade,  (of  which  there  are  three,)  that 
consist  of  a  single  person  each  ;  another  sort  or  grade 
(of  which  there  is  but  one,)  that  consists  of  three  per¬ 
sons — three  Gods  who  are  Dei  simplices — one  God  who 


INTRODUCTORY. 


IOC 

is  Dens  triplex.  We  have,  then,  two  sorts  of  God, 
and  four  Gods — a  real  quaternity,  instead  of  a  trinity  ol 
persons ! 

It  would  seem,  too,  that  if  the  Father  sends  the  Son, 
hears  the  Son,  raises  the  Son,  and  both  dispense  the 
Spirit,  there  is  a  very  marked  subordination  of  cne  God, 
m  the  first  class,  to  another;  that  is,  of  one  Deus  sim - 
plex  to  another.  And,  if  so,  the  four  Gods  are  all  ver) 
distinct  Beings  in  nature,  scope,  and  order — as  distinct 
as  Caesar,  Pompey,  Crassus,  and  the  Triumvirate! 

But,  instead  of  this,  the  actual  supremacy  of  each  and 
all  is  strenuously  asserted  as  a  radical  test  of  orthodoxy. 
Then,  as  the  Father  sends  the  Son,  God  (the  Supreme,) 
sends  God  (the  Supreme,)  and,  in  the  same  manner,  God 
atones  before  God,  God  prays  to  God,  God  submits  to 
God,  God  ascends  to  God.  God  also  suffers,  and  God  dies ! 

But,  to  escape  these  absurdities,  the  Son  empties  him¬ 
self,  it  is  said,  of  his  proper  majesty  and  glory.  This 
can  be  understood  if  it  only  mean  that  he  does  an  act  of 
condescension.  But  if  it  be  supposed  to  mean  that  he 
empties  himself  of  his  real  nature,  as  the  essentially 
Supreme  Being,  it  follows  that  he  is  no  longer  God — we 
know  not  what  he  is.  Where,  meantime,  is  that  part  ol 
his  nature  that  he  has  put  away ;  where,  in  what  con¬ 
stellation  or  third  heaven  is  this  grand  deposit  of  in- 
f  nity  and  deity  laid  by ! 

It  is  also  said,  to  escape  the  same  difficulties,  that  the 
human  nature  only  of  Jesus  suffers,  prays,  and  dies. 
Then,  in  this  matter  of  atonement,  there  is  no  real  im¬ 
plication  of  deity  at  all ;  it  is  only  appearance,  and 

if  more  is  pretended,  false  appearance !  After  all,  the 
10 


110 


I  NTRODUCTORY. 


atonement  is  made  only  by  the  man  Jesus!  The  man 
Jesus  turns  away  from  the  God  in  whose  very  person  he 
is,  as  if  that  person  were  not,  to  pray  to  the  Father — 
prays  to  him  out  of  the  Son,  as  Jonah  to  the  Lord  his 
God,  from  the  heart  of  the  sea — appeals,  in  fact,  from 
the  God  who  has  taken  possession  of  his  humanity,  to  a 
God  who  has  not!  So  the  man  Jesus  suffers  and  dies, 
and  the  suffering  and  death  really  touch  not  the  Son. 
It  is  only  so  arranged  that  the  Son  is  in  local  proximity, 
cohabiting  in  the  same  tenement,  while,  in  reality,  he  has 
nothing  more  to  do  with  the  fortunes  of  the  man  Jesus, 
than  if  he  were  beyond  the  Pleiades — unless  it  be  that 
he  implicates  the  man  in  griefs  and  disasters  which  do 
not  reach  himself!  To  offer,  therefore,  what  the  man 
only  suffers,  as  a  proof  or  expression  of  his  own  compas¬ 
sion,  is  only  to  blind  the  world’s  perceptions  under  pre¬ 
text  of  winning  its  love ! 

Now,  by  this  kind  of  argumentation,  which  is  perfectly 
legitimate,  as  against  our  common  orthodoxy,  because  it 
is  in  the  logical  method  of  orthodoxy,  but  which,  to  me 
and  as  against  me,  has  no  substance  or  verity  whatever — 
by  this  I  say,  it  is  that  Unitarianism  is  ever  at  work  to 
clear  away  what  it  calls  the  scholastic  rubbish  and 
absurdity  of  past  ages,  and  reduce  the  Christian  truth  to 
some  less  offensive  and  more  credible  shape.  Thus 
emerges  a  new  liberal  theology — very  simple,  perfectly 
comprehensible,  never  difficult,  a  last  fruit  of  reason,  a 
completed  model  of —  inefficiency,  perhaps  time  will  say 
and  therefore  I  will  not  anticipate  the  verdict. 

If,  now,  we  wish  to  be  clear  of  scripture,  made  into 
logical  jargon  on  one  side,  and  unmade  or  emptied  of 


INTRODUCTORY. 


Ill 


divinity  and  grandeur  on  the  other,  I  know  no  better 
method  than  to  accept  these  great  truths  of  trinity  and 
atonement  as  realities  or  verities  addressed  to  faith  :  or, 
what  is  not  far  different,  to  feeling  and  imaginative  rea¬ 
son — not  any  more  as  logical  and  metaphysical  entities, 
for  the  natural  understanding.  If  any  one  can  show  me 
a  better  way,  I  am  quite  willing  to  embrace  it. 

It  has  been  customary,  as  all  theologians  know,  to 
allow'  a  wide  range  of  liberty,  under  these  doctrines  of 
trinity  and  atonement.  The  essential  matter  seems  to 
be  that  some  trinity  shall  be  held,  such  as  will  answer  the 
practical  uses  of  the  life,  and  bring  God  into  a  lively, 
glowing,  manifold  power  over  the  inner  man — Father, 
Son,  Holy  Ghost,  historically  three,  and  also  really  one ; 
— some  scheme  of  atonement  that  upholds  law,  as  eternal 
verity  and  sanctity ;  delivering  still  from  bondage  under 
.t,  and  writing  it  as  a  law  of  liberty  in  the  heart.  I  am 
not  aware  that  I  have  transcended  the  limits  of  suffer¬ 
ance  or  pardon  in  regard  to  either  of  these  doctrines, 
though  I  should  not  hesitate  to  do  it  if  the  truth  required. 
As  regards  the  latter,  in  reference  to  which  I  seem  to 
have  excited  the  most  of  apprehension,  my  only  sin 
appears  to  be,  that  I  have  discovered  so  much  more  in 
the  work  of  Christ  than  our  common  forensic  theory  of 
justification  presents,  that  the  real  equivalent  I  have 
given  for  this  latter  is  thrown  into  shade. 

Thirteen  or  fourteen  years  ago,  Professor  Stuart  trans¬ 
lated  and  published,  in  the  Biblical  Repository,  a  transia 
tion  of  Schleiermacher’s  critique  on  Sabellius,  adding 
copious  remarks  of  his  own.  The  general  view  of  the 
trinity  given  in  that  article  coincides,  A  will  be  dis- 


112 


[ N 1 RODUCTORY. 


# 


covered  with  the  view  I  have  presented ;  though  the 
reasonings  are  not,  in  all  points,  the  same.  I  was  greatly 
obliged  to  Professor  S.  for  giving  it  to  the  public,  and  not 
the  less  because  it  confirmed  me  in  results  to  which  I  had 
f  come  by  my  own  private  struggles.  /  That  article,  I  be¬ 
lieve,  awakened  no  jealousy  or  uneasiness  on  account  of 
his  orthodoxy,  although  it  was  frankly  intimated  by  the 
Professor  that  it  had  given  him  new  light,  and  changed 
the  complexion  of  his  own  views.  He  sought,  indeed,  to 
throw  in  a  modification  of  Schleiermacher’s  view,  which 
seemed  to  him  to  be  important,  viz  :  that  while  “  the 
names,  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  seem  to  be  given, 
principally  in  reference  to  the  revelation  of  God  in  these 
characters ,”  “  there  was,  from  eternity,  such  a  distinc¬ 
tion  in  the  nature  of  the  Godhead,  as  would  certainly 
lead  to  the  development  of  it,  as  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost.” — Bib.  Rep.  vol.  vi.  p.  108. 

Doubtless  there  is  some  reason  or  ground  in  the  God¬ 
head,  or  in  God,  for  every  thing  developed  out  of  Him  in 
time,  whether  it  be  a  stone  or  a  fly.  And  if  that  is  what 
the  Professor  means  by  the  word  “  distinction ,”  I  certainly 
agree.  But  if  the  word  means  something  more — if  it 
means  that  the  names,  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  are 
incidental  to  the  process  of  “  revelation,”  and  yet  refer¬ 
able  to  some  equivalent  distinction  back  of  it,  then 
Schleiermacher’s  opinion  seems  to  be  both  accepted  and 
rejected ;  for  if,  supposing  the  strict  simplicity  of  God,  it 
is  still  discovered  that  His  revelation  will  involve  a  three¬ 
fold  impersonation,  then  to  imagine  that  this  latter  indi¬ 
cates  a  threefold  distinction  in  His  nature,  as  its  ground, 
is,  in  fact,  to  abandon,  or,  by  an  inverse  proceeding,  to 


INTRODUCTORY. 


113 


overthrow  the  solution  accepted.  I  have  said  what  is  a 
little  diffeient,  but  certainly  not  more  remote  from  ortho¬ 
doxy,  viz :  that  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  being  inci¬ 
dental  to  the  revelation  of  God,  may  be  and  probably 
are,  from  eternity  and  to  eternity,  inasmuch  as  God  may 
have  revealed  Himself  from  eternity,  and  certainly  will 
reveal  Himself  as  long  as  there  are  minds  to  know  Him.  It 
may  be,  in  fact,  the  nature  of  God  to  reveal  Himself,  as 
truly  as  it  is  of  the  sun  to  shine,  or  of  living  mind  to 
think. 

I  am  well  aware  that  the  exhibition  I  have  made  of  the 
atonement  is  not  apprehended  with  as  great  facility  as 
could  be  desired,  and  I  think  we  have  some  reason  to 
admit  that  the  exhibitions  of  Paul  and  of  John  are  open 
to  the  same  objection,  if  it  be  an  objection ;  for  how  else 
have  good  men  been  obliged  to  spend  so  much  of  toil  on 
their  representations,  with  results  so  unequal  and  diverse  ? 
The  difficulty,  however,  belongs  rather  to  the  greatness 
of  the  subject ;  drawing  into  view,  as  it  does,  all  the  rela¬ 
tions  of  God  on  one  part  and  man  on  the  other ;  involving 
the  deepest  questions  and  profoundest  mysteries  of  the 
moral  government  of  God. 

I  suppose  it  may  require  a  little  effort  on  the  part  of 
those  who  are  not  versed  in  such  forms  of  statement,  to 
apprenend  the  precise  import  of  the  double  view  1  have 
given — the  subjective  and  objective  view,  one  as  equiva¬ 
lent  to  the  other — but,  when  it  is  apprehended,  I  think  it 
will  be  found  to  offer  a  comprehensive  and  satisfactory 
conception  of  the  whole  subject.  In  this  confidence,  I 
venture  to  ask  it  of  the  reader  that  he  will  exercise  a 

little  patience  with  me  here,  and  be  willing  to  turn  bimsel/ 
10* 


114 


INTRODUCTOR  /  . 


about  ir.  such  tentative  efforts  as  may  be  necessary,  till 
he  comes  into  the  stand-point  I  hold.  Since  this  discourse 
was  delivered,  my  attention  has  been  called  to  Neander’s 
volume  on  the  “Planting  and  Training  of  the  Church,” 
where  I  find  also  a  subjective  and  objective  view  main¬ 
tained,  as  belonging  to  the  true  conception  of  the  Pauline 
theology.  I  take  pleasure  in  referring  the  reader  to  so 
high  an  authority.  Indeed,  I  could  wish  that  all  who  de¬ 
sign  to  investigate  these  subjects,  would  make  a  study  of 
the  very  able  expositions  he  has  here  given  of  the  char¬ 
acter,  stand-point  and  Christian  doctrine  of  each  of  the 
apostles — the  more  so,  that  I  am  able  so  generally  to  con¬ 
cur  with  his  views. 

It  was  regarded  by  some,  I  believe,  as  a  defect  of  my 
*  Discourse,’  at  Andover,  that  I  did  not  make  the  dis¬ 
tinction  between  “spirit”  and  “dogma”  more  clear.  I 
have  endeavored  to  do  so.  But  I  submit  whether  it  is 
exactly  reasonable  to  require  of  me  that  I  shall  clear  the 
apostle  Paul  in  the  very  deliberate  statements  he  has 
given  of  this  distinction,  in  both  his  epistles  to  the  Corin¬ 
thians.  Is  it  more  reasonable  to  require  of  me  that  I 
shall  perfectly  settle  a  distinction  which  no  intelligent 
Christian  has  doubted  since  the  relations  of  Faith  and 
Knowledge  \_Pistis  and  Gnosis ]  began  to  be  discussed, 
but  which  no  one  before  me  has  been  able  to  state  so 
exactly  as  to  exclude  ambiguity  ? 

It  has  been  intimated  to  me,  that  what  I  said  in  refer¬ 
ence  to  the  Apostles’  Creed,  is  grounded  in  a  false 
assumption ;  the  German  critics  having  shown  that  this 
creed  was  really  produced  subsequently  to  the  Nicene. 
But  what  have  not  the  German  critics  shown  ?  I  have 


INTRODUCTORY. 


115 

not  investigated  this  question,  farther  than  simply  to 
refer  to  the  authorities  at  hand  in  my  own  library ;  for 
this  is  one  of  those  questions  where  the  evidence  of  in¬ 
spection  suffices,  and  without  any  other  and  against  all 
other,  I  am  quite  willing  to  risk  the  affirmation,  that  the 
Apostles’  Creed  is  not  of  a  date  subsequent  to  the  Nicene. 
It  is  not,  for  the  very  sufficient  reason  that  it  could  not 
be.  The  phrase  “  descended  into  hell 55  is  known  to 
have  been  added  at  a  later  date ; — it  wears,  in  fact,  a 
post-Nicene  look — but  the  other  parts  of  the  document 
appear  to  have  been  gradually  collected  in  the  first  and 
second  centuries. 

It  is  proper  to  add  that  I  have  taken  the  liberty  to 
re-cast  this  latter  ‘  Discourse/  which  had  been  some¬ 
what  hastily  prepared,  and  that  I  have  so  far  modified  its 
form  as  even  to  vary  a  little  the  import  of  the  sub¬ 
ject. 

Some  persons  anticipate,  I  perceive,  in  the  publication 
of  these  ‘  Discourses/  the  opening  of  another  great 
religious  controversy.  There  may  be  such  a  controversy, 
but  I  really  do  not  see  whence  it  is  to  come ;  for,  as 
regards  myself,  I  am  quite  resolved  that  I  will  be  drawn 
to  no  reply,  unless  there  is  produced  against  me  some 
argument  of  so  great  force  that  I  feel  myself  required, 
out  of  simple  duty  tc  the  truth,  either  to  surrender,  or  to 
make  important  modifications  in  the  views  I  have 
advanced. 

I  anticipate,  of  course,  no  such  necessity,  thougn  I  do 
anticipate  that  arguments  and  reviews,  very  much  in  the 
character  of  that  which  I  just  now  gave  myself,  will  be 


116 


INTRODUCTORY. 


advanced — such  as  will  show  off  my  absurdities  in  a 
very  glaring  light,  and  such  as  many  persons  of  acknowl¬ 
edged  character  will  accept  with  applause,  as  conclusive 
or  even  explosive  refutations.  Therefore,  I  advertise  it 
beforehand,  to  prevent  a  misconstruction  of  my  silence, 
that  I  am  silenced  now,  on  the  publication  of  my  volume. 
It  has  been  a  question  whether  my  duty  to  the  truth 
would  suffer  the  taking  of  this  ground  ;  but  I  have  come 
to  the  opinion  that  replications  are  generally  of  little  use, 
and  that,  though  the  truth  may  be  somewhat  hindered  or 
retarded  by  adverse  criticism,  it  will  yet  break  through 
at  last,  unassisted,  and  have  its  triumph.  Furthermore, 
the  truths  here  uttered  are  not  mine.  They  live  in  their 
own  majesty.  Ought  I  not,  therefore,  to  believe  that 
going  forth  in  silence,  having  time  on  their  side,  and  God 
in  company,  they  will  open  their  way,  even  the  more 
securely,  the  less  of  human  bustle  and  tumult  is  made  in 
their  behalf. 

This  it  is  my  happiness  to  think.  Therefore  I  drop 
them  into  the  world,  leaving  them  to  care  for  themselves, 
and  assert  their  own  power.  If  they  create  disturbance, 
I  hope  it  may  be  a  salutary  disturbance.  If  they  are 
received,  and  find  advocates  ready  to  assert  them,  as  I 
do  myself,  out  of  simple  reverence  to  the  truth,  I  shall 
rejoice.  If  they  are  rejected  universally,  then  I  leave 
them  to  time,  as  the  body  of  Christ  was  left,  believing 
that  after  three  days  they  will  rise  again.  For  there  is 
most  assuredly  to  be  a  time,  when  the  apostolic  spirit  of 
religion  will  be  restored,  and  resume  its  sway  in  the 
world ;  when  our  narrow  and  restrictive  dogmas,  our 
forms  of  opinion  elevated  into  measures  of  piety,  our 


INTRODUCTORY. 


117 


low  views  of  faith,  and  our  legal,  uninspiied  charities — 
in  a  word,  the  huge  piles  of  wood,  hay,  and  stubble, 
we  have  accumulated,  will  be  burned  up  in  the  original 
fires  of  the  apostolic  age,  re-kindled  in  the  church.  And 
in  the  restored  simplicity,  the  enlarged  union,  the  quick¬ 
ened  and  quickening  life  of  that  day,  which  I  hope  may 
not  be  distant,  it  may  possibly  be  found  that  views,  such 
I  have  here  offered,  have  more  of  the  Christian  spirit 
and  power,  than  many  are  now  able  to  believe. 


CONCIO  AD  CIERUM: 


A 

DISCOURSE 

ON  THB 

DIVINITY  OF  CHRIST; 

DELIVERED  AT  THB 

ANNUAL  COMMENCEMENT  OF  YALE  COLLEGE. 


AUGUST  15,  1S1& 


THE  DIVINITY  OF  CHRIST. 


It  is  laid  upon  me,  by  the  General  Association  of  Con¬ 
necticut,  to  discuss  before  you,  this  evening,  the  Divinity 
of  Christ — a  duty  which  I  most  willingly  undertake, 
because  I  think  the  time  has  now  come  when  a  re-inves¬ 
tigation  of  the  subject  will  be  more  likely  than  at  any 
former  period,  to  issue  in  a  practical  settlement,  or 
approach  to  settlement,  of  the  questions  involved.  It 
will  be  understood,  in  this  discussion,  that  I  speak  ad 
clerurn ,  and  not  ad  populum.  I  am  not  of  course  respon¬ 
sible  for  the  difficulty  of  the  subject,  as  I  am  not  for  the 
subject  itself.  I  am  only  responsible  for  the  thoroughness 
of  the  argument ;  a  responsibility  which  I  must  endeavor 
to  meet  as  best  I  am  able.  And  if  the  reasonings  neces¬ 
sary  to  a  sufficient  exhibition  of  the  subject  are  some¬ 
times  remote  or  distant  from  the  range  of  popular  thought, 
I  must  not  therefore  withhold.  On  the  contrary,  I  must 
yield  to  the  high  necessities  of  the  subject,  and  regard 
nothing  else  ;  least  of  all,  any  desire  I  might  feel  to  accom¬ 
modate  the  ease  and  patience  of  my  audience.  How¬ 
ever,  I  will  endeavor  to  make  the  argument  as  simple 
and  clear  as  I  am  able — only  reminding  you  that  the 

subject  we  investigate  is  God’s  own  nature  ;  which,  to 

11 


122 


DIVINITY  OF  CHRIST. 


say  nothing  of  ease  or  the  entertainment  of  a  leisure  hour, 
it  were  the  greatest  presumption  in  me,  and  the  greatest 
levity  in  you,  to  suppose  it  possible,  by  any  human  argu¬ 
ment,  to  render  even  comprehensible.  God  exceeds  our 
measure,  and  must,  until  either  He  becomes  less  than  in¬ 
finite  or  we  more  than  finite.  If  we  can  apprehend  Him 
so  as  to  be  clear  of  distraction,  and  of  terms  that  are  ab¬ 
solutely  cross  to  faith  itself,  it  is  all  that  can  be  hoped. 

The  text  that  I  have  chosen  for  my  theme,  is  : — 

1  John  i.  2. — “  For  the  Life  was  manifested ,  and  we 
have  seen  it,  and  hear  loitness,  and  shew  unto  you  that  Eter¬ 
nal  Life  which  was  with  the  Father,  and  was  manifested  unto 

US. 


If  we  raise  the  question  whether  Christ  is  divine,  or 
only  a  mere  human  person  appearing  in  his  proper 
humanity,  this  passage  of  scripture  furnishes  the  simplest 
and  most  beautiful  answer  that  can  be  given  in  words 
It  declares  that  Christ  was  a  manifestation  of  the  Life  of 
God,  that  Eternal  Life  that  was  with  the  Father  before 
the  manifestation.  Accordingly,  we  are  to  see,  in  the 
language,  not  merely  that  the  reality  of  Christ  is  God,  but 
we  have  an  indication  in  the  term  was  manifested  of  that 
which  is  the  real  end  of  his  mission,  and  the  proper  sol¬ 
vent  of  whatever  inquiries  may  be  started  by  his  pe:  son 
as  appearing  in  the  flesh,  or  under  the  historic  conditions 
of  humanity.  In  this  view,  my  whole  discourse  will  only 
be  a  development  of  the  text,  and  therefore  I  need  not 
stay  upon  it  longer. 

By  the  divinity  of  Christ,  I  do  not  understand  simply 


DIVINITY  OF  CHRIST 


J23 


that  Christ  differs  from  other  men,  in  the  sense  that  he  is 
better,  more  inspired,  and  so  a  more  complete  vehicle  oi 
God  to  the  world  than  others  have  been.  He  differs  from 
us,  not  in  degree,  but  in  kind ;  as  the  half  divine  parent¬ 
age  under  which  he  enters  the  world  most  certainly  indi¬ 
cates.  He  is  in  such  a  sense  God,  or  God  manifested, 
that  the  unknown  term  of  his  nature,  that  which  we  are 
most  in  doubt  of,  and  about  which  we  are  least  capable  of 
any  positive  affirmation,  is  the  human.  No  person,  I 
think,  would  ever  doubt  for  a  moment,  the  superhuman 
quality  of  Jesus,  if  it  were  not  for  the  speculative  difficul¬ 
ties  encountered  by  an  acknowledgment  of  his  superhu¬ 
man  quality.  Instead,  therefore,  of  placing  the  main 
stress  of  my  discourse  on  the  direct  argument  for  Christ’s 
divinity,  I  shall  barely  name  or  catalogue  a  few  of  the 
proofs,  and  then  proceed  to  the  difficulties  raised  by  such 
a  view  of  his  person.  I  allege, — 

1.  What  is  said  of  his  pre-existence.  “I  came  out 
from  God.”  “  I  came  forth  from  the  Father,  and  am 
come  into  the  world.”  “  I  came  down  from  heaven.” 
“Ye  are  from  beneath,  I  am  from  above.”  “The  glory 
which  I  had  with  thee  before  the  world  was.”  If  these 
passages  do  not  affirm  the  pre-existence  of  Christ  in  the 
plainest  manner  conceivable,  I  mistake  their  import. 
And,  in  this  view,  they  are  totally  repugnant  to  the  idea 
of  Christ’s  simple  humanity. 

2.  The  miraculous  birth  of  Christ  is  either  a  fable,  or 
else  it  denotes  the  entrance  into  humanity  of  something 
that  is  distinct  from  it.  This  argument  holds  only  with 
those  who  admit  the  truth  of  the  history — a  question 
which  cannot  be  argued  here.  I  will  only  say  that  this 


124 


DIVINITY  OF  CHRIST. 


even  i  of  history,  so  flippantly  rejected  by  some,  has,  to 
me,  the  profoundest  air  of  verity ;  setting  forth,  as  it  does, 
in  the  most  artless  form,  that  which  corresponds  philo . 
sophically  with  the  doctrine  of  a  divine  incarnation  else¬ 
where  advanced.  If  God  were  ever  to  be  incarnate  in 

% 

the  world,  in  what  other  manner,  so  natural,  beautiful 
and  real,  could  He  enter  into  the  life  of  the  race  ? 

3.  The  incarnation  itself  plainly  asserted.  “  The  Word 
*  was  made  flesh.”  “  That  which  we  have  seen  with  our 

eyes,  which  we  have  looked  upon,  which  our  hands  have 
handled  of  the  word  of  Life.”  “  He  that  was  in  the 
form  of  God,  and  was  made  in  fashion  as  a  man.”  Who 
can  imagine,  without  great  violence,  that  language  of  this 
nature  is  applicable  to  any  mere  man  ?  To  make  it  even 
supportable,  the  man,  so  called,  must  be  different  from  all 
other  men,  to  such  a  degree  that  you  may  far  more  easily 
doubt  his  humanity  than  his  divinity. 

4.  What  is  said  of  the  import,  or  the  contents  of  his 
person,  in  passages  like  these :  “  In  whom  dwelt  all  the 
fullness  of  the  Godhead  bodily.”  “  The  church  which  is 
his  body,  the  fullness  of  Him  that  is  all  in  all.”  “  The  ex¬ 
press  image  of  His  person.”  “  The  image  of  the  in¬ 
visible  God.”  “  Complete  in  Him  which  is  the  Head  of 
all  principality  and  power.”  How  expressions  of  this 
nature,  transcending  so  manifestly  all  human  measures, 
can  yet  be  interpreted  so  as  to  consist  with  the  simple 
humanity  of  Jesus,  I  willingly  confess  my  inability  to 
conceive. 

5.  What  Christ  himself  declares  concerning  his  rela¬ 
tions  to  the  Father.  “I  and  the  Father  that  sent  me.” 
“Ye  neither  know  me  nor  my  Father.” 


“  That  which  I 


DIVINITY  OF  CHRIST. 


125 


have  seen  with  my  Father.”  “  The  Father  is  in  me  and 
I  in  him.”  “  He  that  hath  seen  me  hath  seen  the  Father.” 
How  can  we  imagine  any  mere  man  of  our  race  daring 
to  use  language  like  this  concerning  himself  and  God  ? 
Nay,  he  even  goes  beyond  any  one  of  the  expressions 
here  cited.  He  has  the  audacity  (for  what  else  can  we 
call  it,  regarding  him  simply  as  a  man  ?)  to  promise  that 
he  and  the  Father — they  two — will  come  to  men  together, 
and  be  spiritually  manifest  in  them — “  we  will  come  unto 
him  and  make  our  abode  with  him.” 

6.  The  negatives  he  uses  concerning  himself,  as  related 
to  the  Father,  are  even  more  convincing  still,  if  possible. 
Thus,  when  he  says — “  my  Father  is  greater  than  I,” — 
how  preposterous  for  any  mere  human  being  of  our  race 
to  be  gravely  telling  the  world  that  God  is  greater  than 
he  is !  So,  also,  it  is  often  argued  from  those  numerous 
expressions  of  Christ,  in  which  he  calls  himself  the  “  Son 
of  Man,”  that  he  there  concedes  his  humanity.  Un¬ 
doubtedly  he  does,  (for  he  does  not  appear  to  use  the  lan 
guage  in  the  lighter  significance  of  the  old  prophets,)  but 
what  kind  of  being  is  this  who  is  conceding  his  humanity  r 
Could  there  be  displayed,  by  any  human  creature,  a 
bolder  stretch  of  presumption  than  to  declare  that  God 
is  superior  to  him,  or  to  call  himself  “  the  Son  of  Man” 
by  condescension  ? 

7.  Christ  assumes  a  relation  to  the  world  which  is  most 
offensive,  on  the  supposition  that  he  is  a  merely  human 
being.  Nor  does  it  mitigate,  in  the  least,  the  egregious 
want  of  modesty  displayed  in  his  attitude,  to  say  that  he 
was  specially  inspired  ;  for,  in  all  other  cases,  the  inspira¬ 
tion  of  the  man  has  made  him  humbler  in  spirit  than  he 

11* 

# 


126 


DIVINITY  OF  CHRIST. 


was  before — made  him  even  to  sigh  before  the  purity  of 
God — “Woe  is  me,  fori  am  a  man  of  unclean  lips!” 
Imagine,  now,  a  human  being,  one  of  ourselves,  coming 
forth  and  declaring  to  the  race — “  I  am  the  light  of  the 
world.”  “  I  am  the  way,  the  truth,  and  the  life.”  “  I 
am  the  living  bread  that  came  down  from  heaven.” 
“No  man  cometh  unto  the  Father  but  by  me.”  What 
greater  effrontery  could  be  conceived  ? 

8.  Christ  assumes  his  own  sinlessness,  saying — “  which 
of  you  convinceth  me  of  sin  ?” — never  confessing  a  fault, 
never  asking  pardon  for  any  transgression.  His  sinless¬ 
ness,  too,  is  generally  conceded  by  those  who  hold  his 
simple  humanity.  But  what  is  it  to  be  human,  but  to 
have  a  tentative  nature — one  that  learns  the  import  of 
things,  and  especially  of  good  and  evil  by  experiment  ? 
Accordingly,  if  the  man  Jesus  never  makes  the  experi¬ 
ment  of  sin,  it  must  be  because  the  divine  is  so  far  upper¬ 
most  in  him  as  to  suspend  the  proper  manhood  of  his 
person.  He  does  not  any  longer  act  the  man  ;  practi¬ 
cally  speaking,  the  man  sleeps  in  him.  It  is  as  if  the 
man  were  not  there,  and,  judging  only  from  the  sinless¬ 
ness  of  his  life,  we  should  make  no  account  of  the  human 
element  in  his  nature.  He  acts  the  divine,  not  the 
human,  and  the  only  true  reality  in  him,  as  far  as  moral 
conduct  is  concerned,  is  the  divine.  Set  in  connection 
with  this  conclusion,  the  universal  unqualified  determina¬ 
tion  of  the  race  never  to  believe  in  a  perfect  man— 
always  to  assume  the  fallibility  and  imperfection  of  every 
human  being — and  the  sinlessness  of  Jesus  becomes, 
itself,  a  stubborn  evidence  of  his  superhuman  character. 

9.  We  want  Jesus  as  divine,  not  as  human;  least  o* 


DIVINITY  OF  CHRIST. 


127 


all,  do  we  want  Him  as  the  human,  still  out  of  humanity 
and  above  it,  as  held  by  many  Unitarians.  It  is  God 
that  we  want,  to  know  Him,  to  be  near  Him,  to  have 
His  feeling  unbosomed  to  us.  As  to  the  real  human,  we 
have  enough  of  that.  And,  as  to  the  unreal,  superhuman 
human,  that  is,  the  human  acted  wholly  by  the  divine,  so 
as  to  have  no  action  of  its  own,  save  in  pretence,  what 
is  it  to  us  but  a  mockery  ?  What  can  we  learn  from  it  ? 
True,  we  may  draw  from  it  the  ideal  of  a  beautiful  and 
sinless  life,  and,  in  that,  there  may  be  a  certain  power. 
Still,  it  is  an  ideal,  presented  or  conceived  only  to  be  de¬ 
spaired  of.  For  this  beautiful  life,  being  sinless,  is  really 
not  human,  after  all ;  and  we  cannot  have  it,  unless  our 
nature  is  overborne  and  acted  wholly  by  God  in  the 
same  manner  which,  alas !  is  no  longer  possible,  for  we 
are  deep  in  sin  already.  No !  let  us  have  the  divine,  the 
deific  itself — the  very  feeling  of  God,  God’s  own  beauty, 
truth,  and  love.  Then  we  shall  have  both  the  pure 
ideal  of  a  life,  and  a  power  flowing  out  from  God  to 
ingenerate  that  life  in  us.  God  ;  God  is  what  we  want, 
not  a  man  ;  God,  revealed  through  man,  that  we  may 
see  His  Heart,  and  hide  our  guilty  nature  in  the  bosom 
of  His  love  :  God  so  identified  with  our  race,  as  to  signify 
the  possible  union  and  eternal  identification  of  our  nature 
with  His.  1 

10.  As  a  last  evidence  on  this  subject,  and  one  that, 
in  my  view,  winds  up  all  debate,  I  add,  the  holy 
formula  of  baptism — “into  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Ghost.”  That  the  Father  is  God,  is  conceded, 
so,  also,  that  the  Spirit  is  God,  and  then,  between  these 
terms  on  either  hand,  we  have,  dropped  in,  “  the  Son  ” — a 


128 


DIVINITY  OF  CHRIST. 


man,  we  are  told,  a  mere  human  creature,  who  is  one  ol 
ourselves !  This,  too,  in  a  solemn  formula  that  is 
appointed  for  the  consecration  of  a  believing  soul  to  God, 
I  am  well  aware  that  one  or  two  passages  are  cited  tc 
countenance  this  very  harsh  construction,  but  they  are 
not  parallel.  If  we  read,  for  example — “  to  the  general 
assembly  and  church  of  the  first  born,  and  to  God  the 
judge  of  all,  and  to  the  spirits  of  just  men  made  perfect, 
and  to  Jesus,  the  mediator  of  the  new  covenant,” — this 
is  only  a  case  of  mixed  rhetoric,  produced,  in  part,  by 
the  order  of  ideas.  But,  in  this  baptismal  formula,  we 
have  nothing  but  a  mere  collocation  of  names,  and  one 
that  suffers  no  dignified,  or  endurable  construction,  unless 
each  term  is  taken  to  import  the  real  divinity  of  the 
subject.  It  appears  evident  to  me,  that  our  Unitarian 
brethren  impose  upon  themselves,  in  the  construction 
they  give  to  this  formula,  by  collecting  about  the  person 
of  Christ  associations  that  do  not  belong  to  his  proper 
humanity — associations  which  really  belong  to  our  view 
of  his  person,  not  to  theirs.  Were  they  to  read — “in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  A.  B.  the  carpenter,  and  the 
Holy  Ghost,”  they  would  be  sensible,  I  think,  of  some 
very  great  violence  done  to  the  words  by  any  construc¬ 
tion  which  holds  the  strict  humanity  of  Christ. 

Indeed,  it  has  always  seemed  to  me  that  ary  attempt 
to  get  away  from  the  proper  di  vinity  of  Christ,  as  held 
in  this  formula,  must  be  taken  to  proceed  from  a  most 
disingenuous  spirit ;  were  it  not  that  the  practical 
difficulties  thrown  up^n  the  souls  of  men,  the  bewilder 
ment  they  have  suffered,  the  confusion  that  has  enveloped 
their  religious  nature,  under  our  supposed  orthodox  views 


DIVINITY  OF  CHRIST. 


129 


of  the  trinity,  may  have  created  such  a  necessity  as 
must  be  allowed  to  excuse  almost  any  kind  of  violence. 
And,  were  it  not  for  this,  I  do  not  believe  that  any  reader 
of  the  New  Testament,  least  of  all,  any  true  believer  in 
it,  would  ever  have  questioned,  for  a  moment,  the  real 
divinity  of  Christ.  In  fact,  it  never  was  seriously  ques¬ 
tioned  until  after  the  easy  and  free  representations  of 
the  scripture  and  of  the  apostolic  fathers  had  been 
hardened  into  dogma,  or  converted  by  the  Nicene  theo- 
logues  and  those  of  the  subsequent  ages,  into  a  doctrine 
of  the  mere  human  understanding ;  an  assertion  of  three 
metaphysical  persons  in  the  divine  nature.  I  do  not  say 
that  such  a  mistake  must  not  have  been  committed. 
And  then,  when  a  trinity  of  this  kind  was  once  inaugu¬ 
rated,  it  was  equally  necessary  that  speculation  should 
rise  up,  sometime  or  other,  to  clear  away  the  rubbish 
that  speculation  had  accumulated.  A  metaphysical 
trinity  must  be  assaulted  by  a  metaphysical  unity. 
And  then,  coming  after  both,  and  taking  up  the  suspicion 
that,  possibly,  dogma  is  not  the  whole  wisdom  of  man  ; 
seeing,  in  fact,  that  it  is  wholly  incompetent  to  represent 
the  living  truths  of  Christianity,  we  may  be  induced  to 
let  go  a  trinity  that  mocks  our  reason,  and  a  unity  that 
freezes  our  hearts,  and  return  to  the  simple  Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Ghost  of  the  scriptures  and  the  Apostolic 
Fathers;  there  to  rest  in  the  living  and  life-giving  forms 
of  the  spirit.  To  this,  it  is  my  design,  if  possible,  to 
bring  you  ;  for,  in  maintaining  the  essential  divinity  of 
Christ,  there  is  no  difficulty  whatever,  till  we  begin  to 
speculate  or  dogmatize  about  the  humanity,  or  find 


130 


ORTHODOX  VIEWS  OF 


ourselves  in  contact  with  the  more  commonly  accepted 
doctrine  of  trinity. 

1  speak  of  the  more  commonly  accepted  doctrine. 
What  that  doctrine  is,  I  am  well  aware  it  would  be 
exceedingly  difficult  to  state.  Let  us  pause  here,  a 
moment,  and  see  if  we  can  find  our  way  to  any  proxi¬ 
mate  conception  of  it. 

It  seems  to  be  agreed  by  the  orthodox,  that  there 
are  three  persons,  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  in  the 
divine  nature.  These  three  persons,  too,  are  generally 
regarded  as  belonging,  not  to  the  machina  Dei ,  by  which 
God  is  revealed,  but  to  the  very  esse,  the  substantial 
being  of  God,  or  the  interior  contents  of  His  being. 
They  are  declared  to  be  equal ;  all  to  be  infinite ;  all  to 
be  the  same  in  substance  ;  all  to  be  one.  But,  as  soon 
as  the  question  is  raised,  what  are  we  to  intend  by  the 
word  person,  the  appearance  of  agreement,  and  often  of 
self-understanding,  vanishes. 

A  very  large  portion  of  the  Christian  teachers,  together 
with  the  general  mass  of  disciples,  undoubtedly  hold  three 
real  living  persons  in  the  interior  nature  of  God  ;  that  is, 
three  consciousnesses,  wills,  hearts,  understandings.  Cer¬ 
tain  passages  of  scripture  supposed  to  represent  the  three 
persons  as  covenanting,  co-operating,  and  co-presiding, 
are  taken,  accordingly,  so  to  affirm,  in  the  most  literal 
and  dogmatic  sense.  And  some  very  distinguished 
Ur  ng  teachers  are  frank  enough  to  acknowleuge,  that 
any  intermediate  doctrine,  between  the  absolute  unity  ol 
God  and  a  social  unity,  is  impossible  and  incredible  ; 
therefore,  that  they  take  the  latter.  Accordingly,  Father 


CHRIST  /'  ND  THE  TRINITY. 


131 


Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  are,  in  their  view,  socially  united 
only,  and  preside  in  that  way,  as  a  kind  of  celestial 
tri theocracy  over  the  world.  They  are  one  God  simply 
ir:  the  sense  that  the  three  will  always  act  together,  with 
a  perfect  consent,  or  coincidence.  This  view  has  the 
merit  that  it  takes  consequences  fairly,  states  them 
frankly,  and  boldly  renounces  orthodoxy,  at  the  point 
opposite  to  Unitarianism,  to  escape  the  same  difficulties. 
It  denies  that  the  three  persons  are  “the  same  in  sub¬ 
stance,”  and  asserts  Instead,  three  substances;  and  yet, 
because  of  its  clear  opposition  to  Unitarianism,  it  is 
counted  safe,  and  never  treated  as  a  heresy.  However, 
when  it  is  applied  to  Christ  and  his  work,  then  it  breaks 
down  into  the  same  confusion  as  the  more  common  view, 
reducing  the  Son  to  a  really  subordinate  and  subject 
position,  in  which  the  proper  attributes  of  deity  are  no 
longer  visible  or  supposable. 

But  our  properly  orthodox  teachers  and  churches, 
while  professing  three  persons,  also  retain  the  verbal 
profession  of  one  person.  They  suppose  themselves 
really  to  hold  that  God  is  one  person.  And  yet  they 
most  certainly  do  not ;  they  only  confuse  their  under¬ 
standing,  and  call  their  confusion  faith.  This,  I  affirm, 
not  as  speaking  reproachfully,  but,  as  I  suppose,  on  the 
ground  of  sufficient  evidence — partly  because  it  cannot 
be  otherwise,  and  partly  because  it  visibly  is  not. 

No  man  can  assert  three  persons,  meaning  three  con¬ 
sciousnesses,  wills,  and  understandings,  and  still  have  any 
intelligent  meaning  in  his  mind,  when  he  asserts  that 
they  are  yet  one  person.  For,  as  he  now  uses  the  term 
the  very  idea  of  a  person  is  that  of  an  essential,  incom 


132  ORTHODOX  VIEWS  OF 

municable  monad,  bounded  by  consciousness,  and  vitalizee 
Dy  self-active  will,  which  being  true,  he  might  as  wel. 
profess  to  hold  that  three  units  are  yet  one  unit.  When 
he  does  it,  his  words  will,  of  necessity,  be  only  substitutes 
or  sense. 

At  the  same  time,  there  are  too  many  signs  of  the 
mental  confusion  I  speak  of,  not  to  believe  that  it  exists. 
Thus,  if  the  class  I  speak  of  were  to  hear  a  discourse 
insisting  on  the  proper  personal  unity  of  God,  it  would 
awaken  suspicion  in  their  minds ;  while  a  discourse 
insisting  on  the  existence  of  three  persons,  would  be  only 
a  certain  proof  of  orthodoxy ;  showing  that  they  profess 
three  persons,  meaning  what  they  profess,  and  one 
person,  really  not  meaning  it. 

Methods  are  also  resorted  to,  in  the  way  of  explaining 
God’s  oneness  in  consistency  with  His  existence  in  three 
persons,  which  show  that  His  real  oneness,  as  a  spirit,  is 
virtually  lost.  Thus  it  will  sometimes  be  represented, 
that  the  three  persons  are  three  sets  of  attributes  inhering 
in  a  common  substance ;  in  which  method,  the  three 
intelligences  come  to  their  unity  in  a  virtually  inorganic 
ground  ;  for  if  the  substance  supposed,  be  itself  of  a 
vital  quality,  a  Life,  then  we  have  only  more  difficulties 
on  hand,  and  not  fewer ;  viz.,  to  conceive  a  Living 
Person  having  in  Himself,  first,  the  attributes  of  a  person, 
and  secondl}',  three  more  persons  who  are  attributes,  in  the 
second  degree, — that  is,  attributes  of  attributes.  It  can 
hardly  be  supposed  that  any  such  monster  is  intended,  in 
the  way  of  bringing  the  three  persons  into  unity ;  there* 
fore,  taking  the  “substance”  as  inorganic,  we  have  three 
vital  personal  Gods,  and  back  of  them,  or  under  them 


CHRIST  AND  THE  TRINITY.  J  33 

as  their  ground  of  unity,  an  Inorganic  Deity.  I 
make  no  objection  here  to  the  supposition,  that  the 
persons  are  mere  attributes  of  a  substance  not  than 
selves ;  I  ask  not  how  attributes  can  be  real  enough  tc 
make  persons,  and  not  real  enough  to  make  substances  ; 
I  urge  it  not  as  an  objection,  that  our  very  idea  of 
person,  as  the  word  is  here  used,  is  that  of  a  living 
substance  manifested  through  attributes — itself  the  most 
real  and  substantial  thing  to  thought  in  the  universe  of 
God — I  only  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  this  theory  of 
divine  unity,  making  it  essentially  inorganic,  indicates 
such  a  holding  of  the  three  persons  as  virtually  leaves  no 
unity  at  all,  which  is  more  distinct  than  a  profession  of 
mental  confusion  on  the  subject. 

But,  while  the  unity  is  thus  confused  and  lost  in  the 
threeness,  perhaps  I  should  also  admit  that  the  threeness 
sometimes  appears  to  be  clouded  or  obscured  by  the 
unity.  Thus,  it  is  sometimes  protested  that,  in  the  word 
j person ,  nothing  is  meant  beyond  a  “  threefold  distinc¬ 
tion  though  it  will  always  be  observed  that,  nothing 
is  really  meant  by  the  protestation — that  the  protester 
goes  on  to  speak  and  reason  of  the  three,  not  as 
being  only  somewhats,  or  distinctions,  but  as  metaphysi¬ 
cal  and  real  persons.  Or,  the  three  are  sometimes  com¬ 
pared,  ‘n  their  union,  to  the  soul,  the  life  principle  and 
tae  bony  u.i  ,ed  in  me  person  called  a  man — an  illustra¬ 
tion,  wnich,  if  it  has  an^  point  or  appositeness,  at  all,  shows 
how  God  may  be  one  r.nd  not  three ;  for  the  life  and  the 
body  are  not  persons.  Or,  if  the  soul  be  itself  the  life, 
and  the  body  its  external  development,  which  is  possible, 
then,  in  a  yet  stricter  sense,  there  is  but  one  person  in 
them  all. 


12 


134 


ORTHODOX  VIEWS  OF 


Probably  there  is  a  degree  of  alternation,  or  inclining 
from  one  side  to  the  other,  in  this  view  of  trinity,  as  the 
mind  struggles,  now  to  embrace  one,  and  now  the  other 
of  two  incompatible  notions.  Some  persons  are  more 
habitually  inclined  to  hold  the  three ;  a  very  much 
smaller  number  to  hold  the  one.  Meantime,  and 
especially  in  the  former  class  of  those  who  range  them¬ 
selves  under  this  view  of  metaphysical  tripersonality, 
mournful  evidence  will  be  found  that  a  confused  and 
painfully  bewildered  state  is  often  produced  by  it.  They 
are  practically  at  work,  in  their  thoughts,  to  choose 
between  the  three  ;  sometimes  actually  and  decidedly 
preferring  one  to  another ;  doubting  how  to  adjust  their 
mind  in  worship  ;  uncertain,  often,  which  of  the  three  to 
obey ;  turning  away,  possibly,  from  one  in  a  feeling  of 
dread  that  might  well  be  called  aversion ;  devoting 
themselves  to  another,  as  the  Romanist  to  his  patron 
saint.  This,  in  fact,  is  polytheism,  and  not  the  clear, 
simple  love  of  God.  There  is  true  love  in  it,  doubtless, 
but  the  comfort  of  love  is  not  here.  The  mind  is 
involved  in  a  dismal  confusion,  which  we  cannot  thin£ 
of  without  the  sincerest  pity.  No  soul  can  truly  rest  in 
God,  when  God  is  two  or  three,  and  these  in  such  a  sense 
that  a  choice  between  them  must  be  continually  sug- 

Besides,  it  is  another  source  of  mental  confusion,  con¬ 
nected  with  this  view  of  three  metaphysical  persons,  that 
though  they  are  all  declared  to  be  infinite  and  equal, 
they  really  are  not  so.  The  proper  deity  of  Christ  is  not 
held  in  this  view.  He  is  begotten,  sent,  supported,  directed, 
by  the  Father,  in  such  a  sense  as  really  annihilates  r.JS 


C  HEIST  AND  THE  TRINITY. 


135 


deity.  This  has  been  shown  in  a  truiy  searching  and 
convincing  manner  by  Schleiermacher,  in  his  historical 
essay  on  the  trinity.  And,  indeed,  you  will  see,  at  a 
glance,  that  this  view  of  a  metaphysical  trinity  of 
persons,  breaks  down  in  the  very  point  which  is  com¬ 
monly  regarded  as  its  excellence — its  assertion  of  the 
proper  deity  of  Christ. 

Indeed,  it  is  a  somewhat  curious  fact  in  theology, 
that  the  class  of  teachers  who  protest  over  the  word 
'person,  declaring  that  they  mean  only  a  threefold  distinc¬ 
tion,  cannot  show  that  there  is  really  a  hair’s-breadth  of 
difference  between  their  doctrine  and  the  doctrine 
asserted  by  many  of  the  later  Unitarians.  They  may 
teach  or  preach  in  a  very  different  manner, — they  pro¬ 
bably  do,  but  the  theoretic  contents  of  their  opinion 
cannot  be  distinguished.  Thus,  they  say  that  there  is  a 
certain  divine  person  in  the  man  Christ  Jesus,  but  that 
when  they  use  the  term  person,  they  mean  not  a  person, 
but  a  certain  indefinite  and  indefinable  distinction.  The 
later  Unitarians,  meantime,  are  found  asserting  that  God 
is  present  in  Christ,  in  a  mysterious  and  peculiar  commu¬ 
nication  of  His  being,  so  that  he  is  the  living  embodi¬ 
ment  and  express  image  of  God.  If,  now,  the  question  be 
raised,  wherein  does  the  indefinable  distinction  of  one, 
differ  from  the  mysterious  and  peculiar  communication  of 
the  other,  or  how  does  it  appear  that  there  is  any  differ¬ 
ence,  there  is  no  living  man,  I  am  quite  sure,  who  can 
invent  an  answer. 

Such  is  the  confusion  produced  by  attempting  to 
assert  a  real  and  metaphysical  trinity  of  persons  in  tha 
divine  nature  Whether  the  word  is  taken  at  its  full 


136 


TRINITY  INVOLVED  IN 


import,  or  diminished  away  to  a  mere  something  called  a 
distinction,  there  is  produced  only  contrariety,  confusion, 
practical  negation,  not  light. 

And  now  the  question  comes  upon  us — how  shall  we 
resolve  the  divinity  or  deity  of  Christ,  already  proved,  so 
as  to  make  it  consist  with  the  proper  unity  of  God  ? 
To  state  the  question  as  boldly  and  definitely  as  possible, 
we  have  two  terms  before  us.  First,  we  have  the  essen¬ 
tial  unity  and  supremacy  of  God.  This  we  are  to 
assume.  I  am  willing  to  assume  it  without  argument 
Indeed,  there  is  no  place  for  argument ;  for  if  any  one 
will  say  that  he  believes  in  three  metaphysical  or  essen¬ 
tial  persons  in  the  being  of  God,  there  is  no  argument 
that  can  set  him  in  a  more  unsatisfactory  position, 
whether  intellectually  or  practically,  than  he  takes  him¬ 
self.  Or  if  any  one  endeavors  to  relieve  his  position,  by 
declaring  that  he  only  means  distinctions  by  the  word 
persons ,  he  then  flies  into  darkness  and  negation  for  his 
comfort,  and  there  he  may  safely  be  left.  We  take,  then, 
as  a  first  point,  to  be  held  immovably,  the  strict  personal 
unity  of  God — one  mind,  will,  consciousness.  Then, 
secondly,  we  have,  as  a  term  to  be  reconciled  with  this, 
the  three  of  scripture,  and  the  living  person  walking  the 
earth,  in  the  human  form,  called  Jesus  Christ — a  subject, 
suffering  being,  whose  highest  and  truest  reality  is  that 
he  is  God.  Such  is  the  work  we  have  on  hand,  ana  1  i 
must  be  performed  so  as  to  justify  the  language  of  scrip, 
ture,  and  be  clear  of  any  real  absurdity. 

To  indicate,  beforehand,  the  general  tenor  of  my  argu¬ 
ment,  which  may  assist  you  to  apprehend  the  matter  a' 


THE  PROCESS  OF  REVELATION. 


13“ 


it  more  easily,  I  here  suggest  that  the  trinity  we  seek 
will  be  a  trinity  that  results  of  necessity  from  the  revela¬ 


tion  of  God  to  man.  I  do  not  undertake  to  fathom  the 
interior  being  of  God,  and  tell  how  it  is  composed.  That 
is  a  matter  too  high  for  me,  and,  I  think,  for  us  all.  1  only 
insist  that,  assuming  the  strictest  unity  and  even  simpli¬ 
city  of  God’s  nature,  He  could  not  be  efficiently  or  suffi¬ 
ciently  revealed  to  us,  without  evolving  a  trinity  ol 
persons,  such  as  we  meet  in  the  scriptures.  These 
persons  or  personalities  are  the  dramatis  persona  of  reve¬ 
lation,  and  their  reality  is  measured  by  what  of  the 
infinite  they  convey  in  these  finite  forms.  As  such, 
they  bear,  on  the  one  hand,  a  relation  to  God,  who  is  to 
be  conveyed  or  imported  into  knowledge  ;  on  the  other, 
they  are  related  to  our  human  capacities  and  wants, 
being  that  presentation  of  God  which  is  necessary  to 
make  Him  a  subject  of  thought,  or  bring  Him  within  the 
discourse  of  reason  ;  that  also  which  is  necessary  to  pro¬ 
duce  mutuality,  or  terms  of  conversableness,  between  us 
and  Him,  and  pour  His  love  most  effectually  into  our 


To  bring  the  whole  subject  fully  before  us,  let  us 
endeavor,  first  of  all,  to  form  the  distinctest  notion  possi¬ 
ble  of  God,  as  existing  in  Himself,  and  unrevealed. 
Then  we  shall  understand,  the  better,  what  is  necessary 
to  reveal  Him.  Of  course  we  mean,  when  we  speak  of 
G~*l  as  unrevealed,  to  speak  of  Him  anterior  to  His  act 
of  creation  ;  for  the  worlds  created  are  all  outgoings  from 
Himself,  and  in  that  view,  revealments  of  Him.  God 
unrevealed  is  God  simply  existing,  as  spirit,  in  Himself. 


12* 


J  38 


GOD  ABSOLUTE. 


Who,  now,  is  God  thus  existing  in  Himself?  Has  He 
any  external  form,  by  which  He  may  be  figured  or  con¬ 
ceived  ?  No.  Is  He  a  point  without  space — is  He 
space  without  limit  ?  Neither.  Is  His  activity  con¬ 
nected  with  any  sort  of  motion  ?  Certainly  not ;  motion 
belongs  to  a  finite  creature  ranging  in  the  infinite.  Is 
there  any  color,  sound,  sign,  measure,  by  which  He  may 
be  known  ?  No.  He  dwells  in  eternal  silence,  without 
parts,  above  time.  If,  then,  we  can  apprehend  Him  by 
nothing  outward,  let  us  consider,  as  we  may  without 
irreverence,  things  of  a  more  interior  quality  in  His 
being.  Does  He,  then,  act  under  the  law  of  action  and 
reaction,  as  we  do  ?  Never.  This,  in  fact,  is  the  very 
notion  of  absolute  being  and  power,  that  it  acts  without 
reaction,  requiring  no  supports,  living  between  no  con¬ 
trasts  or  antagonisms.  He  simply  is,  which  contains 
everything.  Does  He,  then,  reason  ?  No;  for  to  reason 
in  the  active  sense,  as  deducing  one  thing  from  another, 
implies  a  want  of  knowledge.  Does  He,  then,  deliberate  ? 
No  ;  for  He  sees  all  conclusions  without  deliberation, 
intuitively.  Does  He  inquire  ?  No  ;  for  He  knows  all 
things  already.  Does  He  remember  ?  Never ;  for  to 
remember  is  to  call  up  what  was  out  of  mind,  and 
nothing  is  out  of  mir.d.  Does  He  believe  ?  No  ;  the 
virtue  that  He  exercises  is  a  virtue  without  faith,  and 
radically  distinct,  in  that  view,  from  anything  called 
vii  tue  in  us.  Where,  then,  is  God  ?  by  what  searching 
shall  we  find  Him  out  ?  by  what  sign  is  He  to  be  known 
or  conceived  ?  Does  He  think  ?  No,  never,  in  any 
human  sense  of  the  term  ;  for  thought,  with  us,  is  only  a 
finite  activity  under  the  law  of  succession  and  time ;  ai  d 


GOD  ABSOLUTE. 


13G 


besides  this,  we  have  no  other  conception  of  it.  Has  He 
new  emotior  s  rising  up,  which,  if  we  could  see  them  rise, 
would  show  us  that  He  is  ?  No ;  emotion,  according  to 
our  human  sense,  is  a  mere  jet  of  feeling — one  feeling 
moving  out  just  now  into  the  foreground  before  others ; 
and  this  can  be  true  only  of  a  finite  nature.  God,  ;n 
such  a  sense,  certainly,  has  no  emotions. 

What,  then,  shall  we  say ;  what  conception  form  of 
God  as  simply  existing  in  Himself,  and  as  yet  unrevealed  ? 
Only  that  He  is  the  Absolute  Being — the  Infinite — the 
I  Am  that  I  am,  giving  no  sign  that  He  is,  other  than 
that  He  is. 

“A  very  unsatisfactory,  unpleasant,  unsignificant,  and 
practically  untrue  representation  of  God,”  you  will  say. 
Exactly  so !  that  is  the  point  I  wish  to  be  discovered. 
And  without  a  trinity,  and  incarnation,  and  other  like 
devices  of  revelation,  we  should  never  have  a  better. 

Having  now  come  down  hither,  as  it  were,  upon  the 
shore  of  the  Absolute — that  Absolute  which  has  no  shore 
- — let  us  pause  just  here,  a  moment,  and  take  note,  dis¬ 
tinctly,  of  two  or  three  matters  that  will  assist  us  to 
open  what  remains  of  our  subject  with  a  better  intelli¬ 
gence.  And 

1.  Observe  that,  when  God  is  revealed,  it  cannot  be  as 
the  One,  as  the  Infinite,  or  Absolute,  but  only  as  through 
media.  And  as  there  are  no  infinite  media,  no  signs  that 
express  the  infinite,  no  minds,  in  fact,  that  can  apprehend 
the  infinite  by  direct  inspection,  the  One  must  appear  in 
the  manifold  ;  the  Absolute  in  the  conditional ;  Spirit  in 
form ;  the  Motionless  in  motion ;  the  Infinite  in  the 


140 


INCIDENTS  O  F 


finite.  He  must  distribute  Himself,  He  must  let  forth 
His  nature  in  sounds,  colors,  forms,  works,  definite 
objects  and  signs.  It  must  be  to  us  as  if  Brama  were 
waking  up ;  as  if  Jehovah,  the  Infinite  I  am,  the  Abso¬ 
lute,  were  dividing  off  Himself  into  innumerable  activities 
that  shall  dramatize  His  immensity,  and  biing  Him 
within  the  molds  of  language  and  discursive  thought. 

I  And  in  whatever  thing  He  appears,  or  is  revealed,  there 
will  be  something  that  misrepresents,  as  well  as  something 
that  represents  Him.  The  revealing  process,  that  which 
makes  Him  appear,  will  envelop  itself  in  clouds  of 
formal  contradiction — that  is,  of  diction  which  is  con¬ 
trary,  in  some  way,  to  the  truth,  and  which,  taken  simply 
as  diction,  is  continually  setting  forms  against  each 
other. 

Thus,  the  God  revealed,  in  distinction  from  the  God 
Absolute,  will  have  parts,  forms,  colors,  utterances, 
motions,  activities,  assigned  Him.  He  will  think,  delib¬ 
erate,  reason,  remember,  have  emotions.  Then,  taking 
up  all  these  manifold  representations,  casting  out  the 
matter  in  which  they  are  cross  to  each  other,  and  repug¬ 
nant  to  the  very  idea  of  the  God  they  represent,  we  shall 
settle  into  the  true  knowledge  of  God,  and  receive,  as  far 
as  the  finite  can  receive  the  Infinite,  the  contents  of  the 
divine  nature. 

2.  To  make  this  same  view  yet  more  evident,  observe 
that  we  ourselves  being  finite,  under  time  and  succession, 
reasoning,  deliberating,  thinking,  remembering,  having 
emotions,  can  never  come  into  the  knowledge  of  God, 
save  as  God  is  brought  within  our  finite  molds  of  action 
There  are  certain  absolute  verities  which  belong  to  oui 


THE  REVEALING  PROCESS. 


141 


own  nature,  and  which,  therefore,  we  can  know  as  abso¬ 
lute,  or  which,  I  should  rather  say,  we  must  know.  They 
are  such  as  the  ideas  of  space,  cause,  truth,  right,  and 
the  axioms  of  mathematical  science.  But  these  are 
simple  ideas,  and  have  their  reality  in  us.  God  is  a 
Being  out  of  us,  a  Being  in  whom  the  possibilities  and 
even  facts  of  all  other  being  have  their  spring.  Taken 
in  this  view,  as  the  absolute,  all- comprehensive  being, 
we  can  know  Him  only  as  being ;  that  is,  by  a  revelation, 
or  rather  by  revelations,  giving  out  one  after  another,  and 
in  one  way  or  another,  but  always  in  finite  forms,  some¬ 
thing  that  belongs  to  the  knowledge  of  God.  And  then 
we  know  God  only  as  we  bring  all  our  knowledges 
together.  Thus  we  approach  the  knowledge  of  the 
Absolute  Being,  and  there  is  no  other  way  possible,  or 
even  conceivable. 

Or,  let  me  give  the  same  truth  under  yet  another  form. 
God,  as  the  Absolute  Being,  is  not  under  the  law  ot 
action  and  reaction,  as  I  have  said.  He  does  not  com¬ 
pare,  try  contrasts,  raise  definitions,  in  order  to  know 
Himself.  He  has  all  the  poles  of  self-knowledge  in  His 
consciousness,  and  knows  Himself  by  an  absolute,  eternal, 
infinite,  self-intuition.  We,  on  the  other  hand,  exist 
und  ?r  the  law  of  action  and  reaction,  and  our  minds  are 
worked  under  this  law,  as  truly  as  our  bodies.  The  only 
absolute  knowledge  we  have,  relates  to  the  few  neces¬ 
sary  ideas  just  alluded  to.  As  regards  all  matters  ot 
opinion,  fact,  being,  we  are  obliged  to  get  our  knowledge 
under  the  law  of  action  and  reaction — through  Unites 
that  are  relative  to  each  other,  through  antagonisms, 
contrasts,  comparisons,  interactions,  counteractions.  And 


142 


[  N  C  t  D  T'i  N  T  S  OF 


yet  in  God,  considered  as  Absolute,  there  are  none  ol 
these.  Therefore,  to  set  our  minds  in  action,  or  to  gener¬ 
ate  in  us  a  knowledge  of  Himself,  He  must  produce 
Himself  in  finite  forms  ;  under  the  relations  of  space,  as 
above  and  below,  on  this  side  and  on  that ;  by  motion 

i 

towards,  involving  motion  from.  For  instance,  the 
Saviour,  in  his  exaltation,  goes  up,  by  a  visible  ascent, 
into  the  heavens.  That  is,  motion  from  and  motion 
towards  indicate  his  divine  exaltation.  And  yet,  if  he 
had  parted  from  his  disciples  on  the  other  side  of  the 
world,  he  would  have  moved  in  exactly  the  contrary  direc¬ 
tion.  Now,  the  reality  of  the  ascension,  as  we  call  it,  is 
not  the  motion,  but  what  the  motion  signifies,  viz.,  the 
change  of  state.  So,  when  we  pray  for  the  Holy  Spirit, 
it  is  for  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit — not  that  there  is 
any  descent  or  motion  in  the  case ;  we  only  work  our 
thought  under  the  great  law  of  action  and  reaction, 
which  belongs  to  the  finite  quality  of  our  nature. 

It  was  under  this  principle,  and  no  other,  that  the 
special  economy  of  the  Jewish  state  was  appointed. 
The  whole  universe  of  God  is  a  real  and  proper  theoc 
racy,  but  here  a  special  theocracy  is  organized  for  the 
purpose  of  raising  contrasts,  and  by  that  means  revealing 
God,  or  making  His  sway  apparent.  God  was  the  God 
of  Egypt,  Babylon  and  Philistia,  as  truly  as  of  Israel. 
But  in  a  uniform  handling  of  these  nations,  mark  and 
brutish  as  their  minds  at  that  time  were,  all  wmuld  miss 
of  perceiving  Him, — He  would  be  only  a  lost  idea.  Hence, 
for  the  benefit  of  all,  that  is,  to  make  His  sway  apparent 
to  all,  He  selects  one  people  of  the  four,  to  receive  a 
special  discipline  and  have  a  special  outward  future 


TIIE  REVEALING  PROCESS. 


143 


dispensed  to  them.  He  is  to  be  called  their  God,  and 
they  His  people ;  and  it  is  to  be  seen,  by  the  victories  He 
gives,  and  the  wondrous  deliverances  He  vouchsafes, 
how  superior  He  is  to  the  other  gods  of  the  nations. 
And  so  He  will  be  known,  at  length,  as  the  Great  God 
and  King  above  all  gods.  In  one  view,  this  special 
theocracy  has  a  fictitious  and  even  absurd  look ;  for, 
when  we  scan  the  matter  more  deepl}  we  find  that  God 
reigns  in  Philistia  as  truly  as  in  Israel,  and  the  contrast 
raised  is  only  God  contrasted  with  Himself.  Still  the 
truth  communicated  through  the  contrast — viz.,  God,  is 
the  fundamental  verity  of  the  transaction,  and  the  Jewish 
polity  is  only  the  means  He  appointed  to  make  His 
power  known,  and  disclose,  to  all,  that  broader  and  more 
comprehensive  theocracy,  which  is  the  shelter,  blessing, 
and  joy  of  all. 

The  scripture  writers,  too,  are  continually  working  this 
figure  of  contrast,  even  setting  God,  if  we  compare  their 
representations,  in  a  kind  of  antagonism  with  Himself. 
Here,  for  example,  is  the  great  and  broad  sea — full  of 
His  goodness.  Here  it  is  a  raging  monster,  whose  proud 
and  turbulent  waves  it  is  the  glory  of  His  majesty  to 
ho/.d  in  check.  In  one  case,  the  sea  represents  Him. 
In  the  other,  He  is  seen  triumphing  over  His  repre¬ 
sentative.  Just  so  in  the  heavens,  which,  at  one  time, 
are  His  very  garment ;  while  at  another,  it  is  half  His 
grandeur,  that  He  sits  upon  the  great  circle  above  them, 
to  mold  and  sway  their  motions. 

Now  it  is  in  this  manner  on!  y,  through  relations,  con¬ 
trasts,  actions  and  reactions,  that  we  come  into  the 
knowledge  of  God.  As  Absolute  Being,  we  know  Him 


144 


INCIDENTS  OF 


not.  But  our  mind,  acted  under  the  law  of  action  and 
reaction,  is  carried  up  to  Him,  or  thrown  back  upon 
Him,  to  apprehend  Him  more  and  more  perfectly. 
Nothing  that  we  see,  or  can  see,  represents  Him  fully, 
or  can  represent  Him  truly ;  for  the  finite  cannot  show 
us  the  Infinite.  But  between  various  finites,  acting  so  as 
to  correct  each  other,  and  be  supplements  to  each  other, 
we  get  a  true  knowledge.  Our  method  may  be  compared 
to  that  of  resultant  motions  in  philosophy.  No  one  finite 
thing  represents  the  Absolute  Being ;  but  between  two 
or  more  finite  forces  acting  obliquely  on  our  mind,  it  is 
driven  out,  in  a  resultant  motion,  towards  the  Infinite. 
Meantime,  a  part  of  the  two  finite  forces,  being  oblique 
or  false,  is  destroyed  by  the  mutual  counteraction  of 
forces. 

Under  this  same  law,  I  suggest  that  we  look  for  a  solu¬ 
tion  of  the  trinity,  and  of  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ 
They  are  relatives,  to  conduct  us  up  to  the  Absolute. 

3.  Observe  that,  when  God  is  revealed,  He  will  not, 
if  He  is  truly  and  efficiently  revealed,  be  cleared  of 
obscurity  and  mystery.  He  will  not  be  a  bald,  philo¬ 
sophic  unity,  perfectly  comprehended  and  measured  by  us. 
We  shall  not  have  His  boundaries,  He  will  not  be  simple 
to  us  as  a  man  is.  When  we  have  reduced  Him  to  that, 
and  call  it  our  reason  or  philosophy,  we  have  only  gotten 
up  a  somewhat  larger  man  than  ourselves,  and  set  this 
larger  man  in  the  place  of  the  Absolute  Being.  And  if 
we  perfectly  understand  Him,  if  we  have  no  questions 
about  Him,  the  colder,  and  in  real  truth  the  more 
unknown  He  is — the  Infinite  revealed  away,  not  revealed. 
No;  if  He  is  revealed  at  all,  it  will  be  through  infinite 


THE  REVEALING  PROCESS. 


145 


repugnances  and  contrarieties ;  through  forms,  colors, 
motions,  words,  persons,  or  personalities ;  all  presenting 
themselves  to  our  sense  and  feeling,  to  pour  in  something 
of  the  divine  into  our  nature.  And  a  vast  circle  of  mystery 
will  be  the  back  ground  of  all  other  representations,  on 
which  they  will  play  and  glitter  in  living  threads  of  motion, 
as  lightning  on  a  cloud  ;  and  what  they  themselves  do 
not  reveal  of  God,  the  mystery  will — a  Being  infinite, 
undiscovered,  undiscoverable,  therefore  true.  But  if  we 
could  see  the  last  boundaries  of  God,  and  hold  Him  clear 
of  a  question  within  the  molds  of  logic  and  cognition, 
then  He  is  not  God  any  longer,  we  have  lost  the  con¬ 
ception  of  God. 

Having  noted  these  points,  we  shall  be  able,  I  trust,  to 
advance  more  securely  and  with  a  clearer  intelligence, 
in  the  development  of  our  subject.  We  go  back,  now,  to 
the  Absolute  Being,  to  consider  by  what  process  He  will 
be  revealed,  and  to  see  that  revelation  unfolded.  And 
here  I  must  bring  to  view  a  singular  and  eminent  distinc¬ 
tion  of  the  Divine  nature,  without  which  He  could  never 
be  revealed. 

There  is  in  God,  taken  as  the  Absolute  Being,  a  capa¬ 
city  of  self-expression,  so  to  speak,  which  is  peculiar — a 
generative  power  of  form,  a  creative  imagination,  in 
which,  or  by  aid  of  which,  He  can  produce  HimseF 
outward!},  or  represent  Himself  in  the  finite.  In  this 
respect,  God  is  wholly  unlike  to  us.  Our  imagination  is 
passive,  stored  with  forms,  colors  and  types  of  words 
from  without,  borrowed  from  the  world  we  live  in.  But 
all  such  forms,  God  has  in  Himself,  and  this  is  the  Logos,  / 

the  Word,  elsewhere  called  the  Form  of  God.  Now,  this/ 
13  ' 


146 


THE  T.  OO  O  S  , 


Word,  this  Form  of  God,  in  which  He  sees  Himself,  is 
with  God,  as  John  says,  from  the  beginning.  It  is  God 
mirrored  before  His  own  understanding,  and  to  be 
mirrored,  as  in  fragments  of  the  mirror,  before  us.  Con¬ 
ceive  Him  now  as  creating  the  worlds,  or  creating 
worlds,  if  you  please,  from  eternity.  In  so  doing,  He 
only  represents,  expresses,  or  outwardly  produces  Him¬ 
self.  He  bodies  out  His  own  thoughts.  What  we  call 
the  creation,  is,  in  another  view,  a  revelation  only  of 
God,  His  first  revelation. 

And  it  is  in  this  view  that  the  Word,  or  Logos,  else- 
vhere  called  Christ,  or  the  Son  of  God,  is  represented  as 
he  Creator  of  the  worlds.  Or  it  is  said,  which  is  only 
another  form  of  the  same  truth,  that  the  worlds  were 
made  by  or  through  him,  and  the  apostle  John  adds, 
that  without  Him,  is  not  anything  made  that  was  made. 
Now,  as  John  also  declares,  there  was  light,  the  first 
revelation  was  made,  God  was  expressed  in  the  forms 
and  relations  of  the  finite.  But  the  light  shined  in 
darkness,  and  the  darkness  comprehended  it  not.  The 
divine  Word  was  here;  he  had  come  to  his  own,  but  his 
own  received  him  not.  One  thing  more  is  possible  that 
will  yield  a  still  more  effulgent  light,  viz  :  that,  as  God 
has  produced  Himself  in  all  the  other  finite  forms  oi 
being,  so  now  he  should  appear  in  the  human. 

Indeed,  He  has  appeared  in  the  human  before,  in  the 
same  way  as  He  has  in  all  the  created  objects  of  the 
world.  The  human  person,  taken  as  a  mere  structure 
adapted  to  the  high  uses  of  intelligence  and  moral  action 
is  itself  a  noble  illustration  of  His  wisdom,  and  a  token 
also  of  the  exalted  and  good  purposes  cherished  in  our 


OR  WORD  OF  GOD. 


141 


existence.  But  there  was  yet  more  of  God  to  be  ex¬ 
hibited  n  the  Human  Form  of  our  race.  As  the  spirit  of 
man  is  made  in  the  image  of  God,  and  his  bodily  form 
is  prepared  to  be  -the  fit  vehicle  and  outward  repre¬ 
sentative  of  his  spirit,  it  follows  that  his  bodily  form  has 
also  some  inherent,  a  priori  relation  to  God’s  own  nature  ; 
such  probably  as  makes  it  the  truest,  most  expressive 
finite  type  of  Him.  Continuing,  therefore,  in  a  pure 
upright  character,  our  whole  race  would  have  been  a 
visible  revelation  of  the  truth  and  beauty  of  God.  But 
having  not  thus  continued,  having  come  under  the 
power  of  evil,  that  which  was  to  be  the  expression,  or 
reflection  of  God,  became  appropriated  to  the  expression 
of  evil.  Truth  has  no  longer  any  living  unblemished 
manifestation  in  the  world ;  the  beauty  of  goodness 
lives  and  smiles  no  more.  Sin,  prejudice,  passion, — 
stains  of  every  color — so  deface  and  mar  the  race, 
that  the  face  of  God,  the  real  glory  of  the  Divine,  is 
visible  no  longer.  Now,  therefore,  God  will  reclaim 
this  last  type  of  Himself,  possess  it  with  His  own  life  and 
feeling,  and  through  that,  live  Himself  into  the  acquaint¬ 
ance  and  biographic  history  of  the  world.  “  And  the 
word  was  made  flesh,  and  dwelt  among  us  ;  and  we  beheld 
his  glory  as  of  the  only  begotten  of  the  Father,  full  of 
grace  ana  trutr  ”  “  The  only  begotten  Son,  which  is  in 

the  bosom  of  the  Father,  he  hath  declared  Him.”  This  is 
( 'hnst  whose  proper  deity  or  divinity  we  have  proved. 

Prior  to  this  moment,  there  has  been  no  appearance  of 
trinity  in  the  revelations  God  has  made  of  His  being ; 
but  just  here,  whether  as  resulting  from  the  incarnation 
or  as  implied  in  it,  we  are  not  informed,  a  three-fold 


148 


INCARNATION. 


personality  or  impersonation  of  God  begins  to  offer  itsel* 
to  view.  Just  here,  accordingly,  as  the  revelation  culmi¬ 
nates  or  completes  the  fullness  of  its  form,  many  are 
staggered  and  confused  by  difficulties  \vhich  they  say  are 
contrary  to  reason — impossible  therefore  to  faith.  1 
think  otherwise.  In  these  three  persons  or  impersona¬ 
tions  I  only  see  a  revelation  of  the  Absolute  Being,  under 
just  such  relatives  as  by  their  mutual  play,  in  and  before 
our  imaginative  sense,  will  produce  in  us  the  truest 
knowledge  of  God — render  Him  most  conversable,  bring 
Him  closest  to  feeling,  give  Him  the  freest,  least  ob¬ 
structed  access,  as  a  quickening  power,  to  our  hearts. 

To  verify  this  view  of  Christ,  which  is  now  my  object, 
1  must  apply  it  as  a  solvent  to  the  two  classes  of  difficul¬ 
ties  created  by  the  incarnation  : 

I.  To  the  difficulties  created  by  the  supposed  relations 
of  the  divine  to  the  human,  in  the  person  of  Jesus. 

II.  To  those  which  spring  of  the  supposed  relations  of 
His  divine  person  to  the  other  divine  persons,  or  imper¬ 
sonations  developed  in  the  process  of  revelation.  Under 
the 

I.  The  relations  of  the  divine  to  the  human,  we  meet 
the  objection,  first  of  all,  that  here  is  an  incarnation 
asserted  of  the  divine  nature  ;  that  God,  the  infinite  God, 
is  iepresented  as  dwelling  in  a  finite  human  person,  sub¬ 
ject  to  its  limitations  and  even  to  its  evils  ;  and  this  is 
incredible — an  insult  to  reason.  It  may  be  so,  and  if  it  is, 
we  must  reject  the  doctrine.  But  we  notice,  while  re¬ 
volving  this  objection,  that  several  other  religions  have 
believed  or  expected  an  incarnation  ;>f  their  deity,  or  the 


INCARNATION. 


14b 

divine  principle  of  their  worship ;  and  that  these  have 
been  the  most  speculative  and  cultivated  forms  of  false 
religion.  If,  then,  whole  nations  of  mankind,  comprising 
thinkers,  scholars  and  philosophers,  have  been  ready  to 
expect,  or  have  actually  believed  in  the  incarnation  of 
their  god  or  highest  divinity,  it  would  not  seem  tf  be 
wholly  cross  to  natural  reason  to  believe  in  such  an 
event.  On  the  contrary,  we  are  rather  to  suspect  that 
some  true  instinct  or  conscious  want  of  the  race  is  here 
divining,  so  to  speak,  that  blessed  visitation,  by  which 
God  shall  sometime  vouchsafe  to  give  Himself  to  the 
world. 

Then,  again,  it  was  just  now  made  to  appear  that  the 
human  person  was  originally  and  specially  related  to  the 
expression  of  God,  specially  fitted  to  be  the  organ  of  the 
Divine  feeling  and  character.  It  is  also  clear  that  if  God 
were  to  inhabit  such  a  vehicle,  one  so  fellow  to  ourselves, 
and  live  Himself  as  a  perfect  character  into  the  biographic 
history  of  the  world,  a  result  would  follow  of  as  great 
magnificence  as  the  creation  of  the  world  itself,  viz : 
the  Incorporation  of  the  Divine  in  the  history  of 
the  world — so  a  renovation,  at  last,  of  the  moral 
and  religious  life  of  the  world.  If,  now,  the  human  per¬ 
son  will  express  more  of  God  than  the  whole  cieated 
universe  beside,  (and  it  certainly  will  more  of  God’s 
feeling  and  character,)  and  if  a  motive  possessing  as 
great  consequence  as  the  creation  of  the  world  invites 
Him  to  do  it,  is  it  any  more  extravagant  to  believe  that  the 
Word  will  become  flesh,  than  that  the  Word  has  become, 
or  produced  in  time,  a  material  universe  ?  If  so,  I  can¬ 
not  see  in  what  manner.  Many  persons,  I  know,  do  no 
13* 


150 


INCARNATION. 


believe  that  the  world  has  been  produced  in  time  ;  arc 
of  course,  the  argument  I  state  is  not  for  them.  But  1 
am  speaking,  mostly,  to  such  as  have  faith  to  believe  that 
the  worlds  were  made,  and  find  no  difficulty  in  believing 
in  God  as  a  Creator.  And,  if  a  miracle,  a  putting  forth 
of  God  in  time,  so  vast  as  this,  is  credible,  why  not 
a  miracle  also  that  has  a  necessity  as  deep,  involves 
consequences  of  as  great  moment,  and  makes  an  ex¬ 
pression  of  God  as  much  lovelier  and  holier  as  it  ex¬ 
hibits  more  of  His  moral  excellence  and  grandeur — His 
condescension,  patience,  gentleness,  forgiveness,  in  one 
word,  His  love? 

J  am  speaking,  also,  to  such  as  believe  the  scriptures ; 
and,  therefore,  it  should  be  something  to  notice  that 
they  often  represent  the  Saviour  in  ways  that  indicate 
the  same  view  of  his  person  :  He  is  Emanuel,  God  with 
us — the  Word  made  flesh — God  manifest  in  the  flesh 
■ — the  express  image  of  his  person — the  Life  that  was 
manifested — the  glass  in  which  we  look  to  behold  the 
glory  of  the  Lord — the  fullness  of  God  revealed  bodily 
— the  power  of  God — the  light  of  the  knowledge  of  the 
glory  of  God  in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ — the  image  of 
the  invisible  God.  In  all  these,  and  in  a  very  great 
number  of  similar  instances,  language  is  used  in  refer¬ 
ence  to  Christ,  which  indicates  an  opinion  that  his 
advent  is  the  appearing  of  God  ;  his  deepest  reality,  that 
he  expresses  the  fullness  of  the  Life  of  God.  Nor  does  it 
satisfy  this  language  at  all,  to  conceive  that  Christ  is  a 
good  man,  or  a  perfect  man,  and  that  so  he  is  an  illustra¬ 
tion,  or  image  of  God.  Such  a  construction  might  be 


INCARNATION. 


151 


given  to  a  single  expression  of  the  kind ;  for  we  use 
occasionally  an  almost  violent  figure.  But  this  is  cool, 
ordinary,  undeclamatory  language,  and  the  same  idea  is 
turned  round  and  round,  appears  and  reappears  in  dif¬ 
ferent  shapes,  and  becomes,  in  fact,  the  hinge  of  the 
gospel — the  central  light  of  the  glorious  gospel  of  Chrst, 
who  is  the  image  of  God,  shining  unto  men.  It  should 
also  be  added  that,  probably,  a  very  great  share  of  the  dif¬ 
ficulties  that  compass  this  subject,  were  originally  created 
by  overlooking,  or  making  no  sufficient  account  of,  the 
very  class  of  representations  here  referred  to ;  for  we 
throw  away  all  the  solvents  of  the  incarnation  and  the 
trinity  that  are  given  us,  and  then  complain  of  our 
difficulties. 

But  the  human  person,  it  will  be  said,  is  limited,  and 
God  is  not.  Very  true.  But  you  have  the  same  objec¬ 
tion  in  reference  to  the  first  revelation,  the  Word  in  the 
world.  This  also  is  limited — at  least  what  you  have 
known  of  it  is  limited  ;  besides,  you  have  a  special  delight 
in  seeing  God  in  the  smallest  things,  the  minutest  specks 
of  being.  If,  then,  it  be  incredible  that  God  should  take 
the  human  to  express  Himself,  because  the  human  is 
finite,  can  the  finite  in  the  world,  or  in  a  living  atom, 
express  Him  more  worthily,  or  do  it  more  accordantly 
with  reason  ? 

But  Christ,  you  will  say,  perhaps,  is  a  living  intelligent 
person.  Taking  him,  therefore,  as  a  person,  I  must  view 
him  under  the  measures  and  limitations  of  a  person. 
Very  true,  if  you  have  a  right  to  measure  the  contents 
of  his  person  by  his  body  ;  which,  possibly,  you  have 
no  more  right  to  do  than  you  have  to  measure  God, 


152 


INCARNATION. 


as  revealed  in  any  object,  by  the  object  that  reveals 
Him.  For  it  no  more  follows  that  a  human  body 
measures  God,  when  revealed  through  it,  than  that  a 
star,  a  tree,  or  an  insect  measures  Him,  when  He  is 
revealed  through  that.  As  regards  the  interior  nature 
of  Christ,  or  the  composition  of  his  person,  we  perhaps 
know  nothing ;  and  if  his  outward  nature  represents  an 
unknown  quantity,  it  may,  for  aught  that  appears,  rep¬ 
resent  an  infinite  quantity.  A  finite  outward  person, 
too,  may  as  well  be  an  organ  or  type  of  the  Infinite 
as  a  finite  thing  or  object ;  and  God  may  act  a  human 
personality,  without  being  measured  by  it,  as  well  as  to 
shine  through  a  finite  thing  or  a  world,  without  being 
measured  by  that. 

But  this  divine  person,  the  Christ,  grows,  I  shall  be 
reminded,  or  is  said  to  grow  in  wisdom  and  knowledge 
There  must,  therefore,  be  some  kind  of  intelligence  in 
him,  call  it  human  or  divine,  which  is  under  a  law  of 
development,  and  therefore  of  limitation.  To  this  I 
answer  (1.)  that  the  language  may  well  enough  be  taken 
as  language  of  external  description  merely,  or  as  only 
setting  forth  appearance  as  appearance ;  or  (2.)  it  may 
be  said,  which  is  far  more  satisfactory,  and  leaves  the 
question  where  it  should  be,  that  the  body  of  Christ 
evidently  grew  up  from  infancy ;  and  that  all  his  actings 
grew  out,  so  to  speak,  with  it ;  and  if  the  divine  was  mani¬ 
fested  in  the  ways  of  a  child,  it  creates  no  difficulty  which 
does  not  exist  when  it  is  manifested  in  the  ways  of  a  man 
or  a  world.  The  whole  question  is,  whether  it  is  possible 
for  the  divine  nature  to  be  manifested  in  humanity,  and,  as 
it  belongs  to  humanity  to  grow,  I  see  nothing  in  that  to 


INCARNATION. 


153 


create  a  difficulty,  more  than  when  it  is  considered  to  be 
the  part  of  humanity  to  inquire,  reason,  remember,  have 
emotions,  and  move  about  in  space ;  for  none  of  these 
belong  to  the  true  Absolute  Deity.  Even  to  say  that 
Christ  reasons  and  thinks,  using  the  words  in  their 
human  sense,  is  quite  as  repugnant  to  his  proper  Deity, 
as  to  say  that  he  learns  or  grows  in  knowledge,  after 
the  manner  of  a  child ;  for  to  reason  and  to  think,  are, 
in  fact,  the  same  as  to  learn. 

But  the  history  of  Christ,  it  will  be  said,  compels  us 
to  go  farther.  We  cannot  look  at  the  external  person 
of  Christ  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  Absolute  Jehovah 
on  the  other,  and  regard  the  former  simply  as  a  repre¬ 
sentative  or  expression  of  the  other.  Christ,  says  the 
Unitarian,  obeys,  worships,  suffers,  and  in  that  manner 
shows  most  plainly  that  his  internal  nature  is  under  a 
limitation  ;  therefore  he  is  human  only.  Then  the  com¬ 
mon  Trinitarian  replies,  your  argument  is  good  ;  there¬ 
fore  we  assert  a  human  soul  in  the  person  of  Jesus,  which 
comes  under  these  limitations,  while  the  divine  soul 
escapes ;  and  so  we  save  the  divinity  unharmed  and 
unabridged. 

Answering  the  latter  first,  I  reply  that,  in  holding  such 
a  theory  of  Christ’s  obedience  and  sufferings,  he  does  an 
affront  to  the  plain  language  of  scripture.  For  the  scrip¬ 
ture  does  not  say  that  a  certain  human  soul  called  Jesus, 
born  as  such  of  Mary,  obeyed  and  suffered  ;  but  it  says  in 
the  boldest  manner,  that  he  who  was  in  the  form  of  God, 
humbled  himself  and  became  obedient  unto  death,  even  the 
death  of  the  cross.  A  declaration,  the  very  point  of  which 
s,  not  that  the  man  Jesus  was  a  being  under  human 


154 


INCARNATION. 


limitations,  but  that  ne  who  was  in  the  Form  of  God 
the  real  divinity,  came  into  the  finite,  and  was  subjec 
to  human  conditions.  Then,  again,  Christ  himself  de¬ 
clared,  not  that  a  human  soul,  hid  in  his  person,  was 
placed  under  limitations,  but  more — that  the  Son,  that 
[is,  the  divine  person — for  the  word  Son  is  used  as  relative 
to  the  Father — the  Son  can  do  nothing  of  himself  bu 
what  he  seeth  the  Father  do  ;  for  the  Father  loveth  the 
Son  and  sheweth  him  all  things  that  himself  doeth.  He 
also  prays — “  O  Father,  glorify  thou  me  with  thine  own 
self,  with  the  glory  that  I  had  with  thee  before  the  world 
was,” — a  prayer  which  cannot  be  referred  to  the  human 
soul,  even  if  there  was  a  human  soul  hid  in  his  person  ;  for 
that  soul  could  speak  of  no  glory  it  once  ‘had  with  the 
Father.  Hence  the  supoosition  of  a  human  soul  existing 
distinctly,  and  acting  by  itself,  clears  no  difficulty  ;  for 
the  Son,  the  divine  part,  or  I  should  rather  say,  the  whole 
Christ,  is  still  represented  as  humbled,  as  weak,  as 
divested  of  glory,  and  existing  under  limitations  or  con¬ 
ditions  that  do  not  belong  to  Deity. 

Besides,  this  theory  of  two  distinct  subsistences,  still 
maintaining  their  several  kinds  of  action  in  Christ, — 
one  growing,  learning,  obeying,  suffering ;  the  other  infi¬ 
nite  and  impassible — only  creates  difficulties  a  hundred 
fold  greater  than  any  that  it  solves.  It  virtually  denies 
any  real  unity  betwee  \  the  human  and  the  divine,  and 
substitutes  collocation  or  copartnership  for  unity.  If  the 
divine  part  were  residing  in  Saturn,  he  would  be  as  truly 
united  with  the  human  race  as  now.  Instead  of  a  per¬ 
son  whose  nature  is  the  real  unity  of  the  divine  and  the 
human,  we  have  two  distinct  persons,  between  whom  our 


INCARNATION. 


155 


thoughts  are  continually  alternating;  referring  this  to 
one,  that  to  the  other,  and  imagining,  all  the  while,  not  a 
union  of  the  two,  in  which  our  possible  union  with  Goc 
is  signified  and  sealed  farever,  but  a  practical,  historical 
assertion  rather  of  his  incommunicableness,  thrust 
upon  our  notice,  in  a  form  more  oppressive  and  chilling 
than  it  has  to  abstract  thought.  Meantime  the  whole 
work  of  Christ,  as  a  subject,  suffering  Redeemer,  is  thrown 
upon  the  human  side  of  his  nature,  and  the  divine  side 
standing  thus  aloof,  incommunicably  distant,  has  nothing 
in  fact  to  do  with  the  transaction,  other  than  to  be  a  spec¬ 
tator  of  it.  And  then,  while  we  are  moved  to  ask  of  what 
so  great  consequence  to  us,  or  to  the  government  of  God, 
can  be  the  obedience  and  suffering  of  this  particular  man 
Jesus,  more  than  of  any  other,  it  is  also  represented,  as 
part  of  the  same  general  scheme,  that  he  is,  after 
all,  scarcely  more  than  a  mere  nominal  man — that  he  is  so 
removed  from  the  fortunes  and  the  proper  trial  of  a  man, 
by  the  proximity  of  the  divine,  as  not  even  to  unfold  a 
human  character !  And  thus,  while  the  redemption  even 
of  the  world  is  hung  upon  his  human  passibilities,  he  is 
shown,  as  a  man,  to  have  probably  less  of  human  signifi¬ 
cance  than  any  other  ;  to  be  a  man  whose  character  is  not 
in  himself,  but  in  the  custody  that  keeps  him  from  being 
himself! 

There  is,  then,  I  conclude,  no  solid  foundation  for  the 
common  trinitarian  theory  of  two  distinct  or  distinctly 
active  subsistences  in  the  person  of  Christ.  It  is  not 
scriptural.  It  accounts  for  nothing.  It  only  creates 
even  greater  difficulties.  Indeed,  it  is  a  virtual  denial, 
we  should  say,  of  that  which  is,  in  one  view,  the  summi 


156 


INCARNATION. 


or  highest  glory  of  the  incarnation,  viz.,  the  union  sig¬ 
nified,  and  historically  begun  between  God  and  man. 

Replying,  now,  both  to  the  Unitarian  and  the  common 
Trinitarian  together,  I  deny  that  the  obedience,  worship, 
suffering,  and  other  subject  conditions  of  Christ,  do,  of 
necessity,  create  the  difficulties  supposed.  To  name  God, 
or  even  to  speak  of  Him,  is,  in  one  view,  to  raise  a  diffi¬ 
culty ;  for,  in  so  doing,  we  are  always  seeking  to  repre¬ 
sent  the  infinite  by  the  finite  ;  that  is,  by  terms  whose 
symbols  and  significances  are  relative  only — subject  to 
finite  conditions  and  measures.  But  we  are  never 
troubled  by  any  sense  of  absurdity  or  incompatibility, 
when  we  thus  speak  of  God  ;  for  we  know  that  our  words 
nave  their  truth  or  falsity  in  what  they  express,  what 
they  put  others  on  thinking  of  God,  not  in  their  measures 
or  boundaries,  under  the  laws  of  space  and  time.  Their 
reality  is  in  what  they  signify,  not  in  what  they  are. 

And,  precisely  so,  the  reality  of  Christ  is  what  he  ex¬ 
presses  of  God,  not  what  he  is  in  his  physical  conditions, 
.or  under  his  human  limitations.  He  is  here  to  express 
the  Absolute  Being,  especially  His  feeling,  His  love  to 
man,  His  placableness,  conversabl'eness,  and  His  real 
union  to  the  race ;  in  a  word,  to  communicate  His  own 
Life  to  the  race,  and  graft  Himself  historically  into  it. 
Therefore,  when  we  see  him  thus  under  the  conditions  of 
increase,  obedience,  worship,  suffering,  we  have  nothing 
to  do  but  to  ask  what  is  here  expressed,  and,  as  long  as 
we  do  that,  we  shall  have  no  difficulty.  But  if  we  insist 
on  being  more  curious,  viz.,  on  understanding  the  com¬ 
position  of  the  person  of  Jesus,  and  the  relations  of  the 
infinite  to  the  finite  in  his  person,  we  can  create  as  much 


IN  CARNATION. 


157 


of  difficulty  as  we  please ;  though  scarcely  more  than 
we  could,  if  we  pleased  to  investigate,  in  the  same  manner, 
the  interior  relations  of  words  or  the  types  of  words  to 
thoughts  ;  for  we  can  as  easily  perceive  how  Jesus  is 
constructed  for  the  expression  of  God,  as  how  a  straight 
line  rectus ,  right)  becomes  the  symbol  of  virtue.  There 
is  a  point  of  mystery  and  even  of  contradiction  in  both 
— a  something  transcendent,  which  no  investigation  will 
ever  reach. 

Therefore,  to  insist  on  going  beyond  expression,  inves¬ 
tigating  the  mystery  of  the  person  of  Jesus,  when  it  is 
given  us  only  to  communicate  God  and  His  love,  is  in 
fact  to  puzzle  ourselves  with  the  vehicle,  and  rob  our¬ 
selves  of  the  grace  it  brings.  It  is  killing  the  animal,  that 
we  may  find  where  the  life  is  hid  in  him,  and  detect  the 
mode  of  its  union  with  his  body.  It  is  taking  the  medi¬ 
cine  that  would  cure  us,  and  using  it,  not  as  a  cure,  but  as  a 
subject  of  investigation.  God  certainly  is  able  to  assume 
the  human,  to  become  incarnate  in  it  so  far  as  to  express 
His  union  to  it,  and  set  Himself  as  Eternal  Life  in  his¬ 
toric  and  real  connection  with  it.  He  tells  us  plain. y 
that  He  has  done  it.  That  we  may  know  by  what 
law  to  receive  and  interpret  His  proceeding,  His  object 
is  declared  ;  viz.,  to  express  or  manifest  Himself  in  the 
world,  and  thus  to  redeem  the  world. 

We  see  at  once,  if  it  be  so,  that  here  is  a  matter  pre¬ 
sented,  which  is  not  psychologically  or  physiologically 
investigable,  because  it  does  not  lie  within  the  categories  ol 
ordinary,  natural  humanity.  And  yet,  instead  of  turning 
to  receive  simply  what  is  expressed  of  the  divine,  we 

immediately  begin  to  try  our  science  on  the  interior  per- 

14 


158 


INCARNATION. 


son  of  Jesus,  to  ascertain  its  contents  or  elements,  and 
the  mode  of  its  composition  !  Nay,  we  must  know  who 
suffers,  what  worships,  and  all  the  hidden  chemistries  of 
the  person  must  be  understood !  Then  as  to  what  is  ex¬ 
pressed,  why,  that  is  a  matter  of  so  little  moment  that 
many  overlook  it  wholly. 

It  is  as  if  Abraham,  after  he  had  entertained  as  a 
guest  the  Jehovah  angel,  or  angel  of  the  Lord,  instead  of 
receiving  his  message,  had  fallen  to  inquiring  into  the 
digestive  process  of  the  angel ;  or,  since  he  came  in 
human  form  and  spoke  with  a  human  voice,  whether 
he  had  a  human  soul  or  not ;  and,  if  so,  how  the  two  na¬ 
tures  were  put  together !  Let  alone  thy  folly  and  thy 
shallow  curiosity,  O  Abraham  !  we  should  say,  hear  the 
Lord  speak  to  thee ;  what  he  commands  thee,  do,  what 
he  promises,  believe !  Suspend  thy  raw  guesses  at  His 
nature,  and  take  His  message ! 

Or,  it  is  as  if  Moses,  when  he  saw  the  burning  bush, 
had  fallen  at  once  to  speculating  about  the  fire :  Is  this 
real  fire  ?  No,  if  it  was  it  would  burn  the  wood.  Well, 
if  it  is  not  fire,  then  there  is  nothing  very  wonderful 
in  it ;  for  it  is  nothing  wonderful  that  that  which  is 
not  fire  should  not  burn!  Nay,  is  it  not  a  very  dis¬ 
honest  fire?  he  might  have  said;  for  it  is  not  what  it 
pretends  to  be — it  is  no  real  fire  at  all.  And  yet  it 
was  better,  methinks,  to  take  the  bush  as  it  was  meant, 
to  see  God  in  it,  and  let  the  chemists  look  after  the 
fire  ! 

It  is  very  difficult,  I  know,  for  a  certain  class  of  men, 
whose  nature  it  is  to  live  in  their  logic  and  not  in  simple 
insight,  to  stay  content  with  anything  which  has  not  been 


INCARNATION. 


159 


rerified  by  some  word-process.  Instead  of  putting  off 
their  shoes  before  the  burning  bush,  they  would  put  out 
the  fire  rather — by  such  kind  of  constructive  wisdom  as 
I  have  just  now  given.  A  poem  is  ill  to  such,  if  it  does 
not  stand  well  in  the  predicaments.  Receiving  nothing 
by  their  imagination  or  by  their  heart,  the  verities  they 
embrace  are  all  dead  verities.  And  as  dead  verities  can¬ 
not  impregnate,  they  live  as  being  dead  themselves — a 
sterile  class  of  souls,  whom  not  even  the  life-giving  mys¬ 
teries  of  the  incarnation  are  able  to  fructify.  See,  they 
say,  Christ  obeys  and  suffers,  how  can  the  subject  be  the 
supreme  ;  the  suffering  man,  the  impassible  God  !  Proba¬ 
bly  they  toss  off  their  discovery  with  an  air  of  superior 
sagacity,  as  if  by  some  peculiar  depth  of  argument  they 
had  reached  a  conclusion  so  profound.  They  cannot 
imagine  that  even  the  babes  of  true  knowledge,  the  sim¬ 
ple  children  of  Christian  faith,  who  open  their  hearts 
to  the  reconciling  grace  of  God  in  Christ  Jesus,  are 
really  wiser  and  deeper  than  they.  As  if  it  were  some 
special  wisdom  to  judge  that  the  Lord  Jesus  came  into 
the  world,  not  simply  to  express  God,  and  offer  Him  to  the 
embrace  of  our  love,  but  to  submit  a  new  riddle  to  the 
speculative  chemistry  and  constructive  logic  of  the  race ! 
Indeed,  you  may  figure  this  whole  tribe  of  sophisters  as 
a  man  standing  before  that  most  beautiful  and  wondrous 
work  of  art,  the  ‘Beatified  Spirit’  of  Guido,  and  there 
commencing  a  quarrel  with  the  artist,  that  he  should 
be  so  absurd  as  to  think  of  making  a  beatified  spiiit  out  of 
mere  linseed,  ochres,  and  oxides  !  Would  it  not  be  more 
dignified  to  let  the  pigments  go  and  take  the  expression 
of  the  canvas  ?  Just  so  are  the  human  personality, 


160 


INCARNATION. 


the  obedient,  subject,  suffering  state  of  Jesus,  all  to  be 
taken  as  colors  of  the  Divine,  and  we  are  not  to  fool 
ourselves  in  practicing  our  logic  on  the  colors,  but  to 
seize,  at  once,  upon  the  divine  import  and  significance 
thereof ;  ascending  thus  to  the  heart  of  God,  there  to 
rest,  in  the  vision  of  His  beatific  glory. 

I  am  well  aware  that  we  are  never  to  believe,  never 
can  believe  anything  that  is  really  absurd  or  contradictory; 
but  we  are  to  believe,  constantly,  things  that,  taken  in 
their  form,  are  contrary  one  to  the  other — contrary  in 
diction.  The  highest  and  divinest  truths  are  often  to 
be  expressed,  or  communicated  only  in  this  manner.  I 
could  name  a  poem  of  fifty  lines,  in  which  as  many  as 
four  plain  formal  contradictions  occur,  all  evolving  truths 
of  feeling,  otherwise  not  in  the  power  of  any  language 
to  express.  And  so,  the  gospel  of  John  is  the  most  con¬ 
tradictory  book  in  the  world,  one  of  which  logic  can 
make  just  what  havoc  it  will — and  this,  because  it  is  a 
book  that  embodies  more  of  the  highest  and  holiest  forms 
of  truth  than  any  other.  Accordingly,  the  only  way 
to  read  this  book  is,  first,  to  get  the  divine  aim  of  Christ’s 
mission  before  us,  viz.,  to  express  God,  then  to  let  all 
the  repugnant  terms  pour  their  contents  into  our  thought 
and  feeling,  suffering  whatever  of  repugnance  there  is  in 
the  vehicles  to  fall  off  and  be  forgotten — just  as  in  the 
viewing  of  a  picture,  the  colors  that  are  used  to  make 
shades,  and  thus  to  develop  the  forms,  are  disregarded 
and  rejected  when  you  consider  the  matter  of  complexion; 
or  just  as  the  flatness  of  the  canvas  is  not  insisted  on 
as  contrary  to  the  roundness  of  the  forms  ;  or  just  as  yon 
disregard  every Ihing  else,  when  you  come  to  the  moral 


INCARNATION. 


161 


expression,  and  offer  your  simple  feeling  to  that,  as  the 
living  truth  of  all. 

So  in  the  matter  of  Christ’s  obedience,  you  are  not  so 
much  to  consider  the  obedience,  as  what  the  obedience 
expresses,  or  signifies.  Man  obeys  for  what  obedience  is, 
but  the  subject  obedient  state  of  Christ  is  accepted  for 
what  it  conveys,  or  expresses.  Ask,  then,  what  his 
obedience  signifies,  in  the  light  and  shade  of  his  own 
peculiar  history.  Possibly  it  signifies  what  is  only  a 
highest  and  first  truth  in  the  character  of  God  ;  viz., 
that  He  Himself  obeys  and  enthrones  forever  the  right, 
honors  it,  enjoys  it,  as  His  own  Pure  Law  ;  and  so,  or  bj 
the  expression  of  this  most  powerful  and  divinest  truth,  it 
may  be  that  Christ  sanctifies  the  law  that  we  have  broken, 
erecting  it  again,  in  its  original  sacredness  and  majesty, 
before  all  mankind.  Or,  if  we  speak  of  the  worship  paid 
by  Christ,  can  anything  be  more  clear  than  that  Christ, 
in  expressing  what  is  perfect  in  God  through  the  human, 
must  use  the  human  type  according  to  its  nature,  and  the 
conditions  to  which  it  is  subject  ?  God  does  not  weep, 
but  it  will  be  no  absurd  thing  for  Jesus  to  weep,  and  that, 
too,  in  the  way  even  of  revealing  or  expressing  God.  So 
if  he  renders  worship,  it  creates  no  difficulty  which  does 
not  belong  to  his  simple  identification  with  the  human, 
as  truly  as  to  his  worship.  He  is  only  absurd  when  he 
acts  the  heathen,  and  refuses  to  worship  in  the  way  of 
expressing  God.  To  do  this  effectively,  he  must  act  the 
human  perfectly — that  is,  he  must  worship. 

I  do  not  pretend,  however,  to  solve  this  matter  of  wor 
ship.  The  mystery  of  the  divine-human  must  remain 
a  mystery.  I  cannot  fathom  it.  Reason  itse  f  will  jus 


14 


# 


162 


INCA  F,  NATION. 


tify  me  in  no  such  attempt.  And  when  we  come  to  speak 
of  the  sufferings  and  death,  I  would  withhold,  in  like  man¬ 
ner,  and  require  myself  to  look  only  at  what  the  sufferings 
and  death  express.  It  is  commonly  held  that  God  is  im¬ 
passible,  though  we  never  hesitate  to  affirm  that  He  is  dis¬ 
pleased  thus  or  thus,  and  this  displeased  state  is,  so  far,  of 
course,  an  un-pleased  or  painful  state.  But,  even  if  it  were 
otherwise,  if  God,  in  His  own  nature,  were  as  unsuscepti¬ 
ble  as  a  rock,  that  fact  would  justify  no  inference  con¬ 
cerning  the  person  of  Christ.  The  only  question  is, 
whether  God,  by  a  mysterious  union  with  the  human,  can 
so  far  employ  the  element  of  suffering  as  to  make  it  a  vehi¬ 
cle  for  the  expression  of  His  own  Grace  and  Tenderness 
— whether,  indeed,  God  can  be  allowed,  in  any  way,  to 
exhibit  those  Passive  Virtues  which  are  really  the  most 
active  and  sublimest  of  all  virtues  ;  because  they  are  most 
irresistible,  and  require  the  truest  greatness  of  spirit. 
Therefore,  when  we  come  to  the  agony  of  the  garden, 
and  the  passion  of  the  cross,  we  are  not,  with  the  specu¬ 
lative  Unitarian,  to  set  up  as  a  dogma,  beforehand,  and  as 
something  that  we  perfectly  know,  that  God  can  set  Him¬ 
self  in  no  possible  terms  of  connection  with  suffering;  nor 
believing  with  the  common  Trinitarian,  that  there  are 
two  distinct  natures  in  Christ,  are  we  to  conclude  that  no 
sort  of  pang  can  touch  the  divine  nature,  and  that  only 
his  human  part  can  suffer.  We  cannot  thus  intrude  into 
the  interior  of  God’s  mysteries.  We  are  only  to  see  the 
eternal  Life  approach  our  race — Divine  Love  manifested 
and  sealed  ;  the  Law  sanctified  by  obedience  unto  death ; 
pardon  certified  by  the  ‘Father  Forgive;’  peace  estab¬ 
lished  and  testified  by  the  resurrection  from  the  dead. 


INCARNATION. 


163 


And  the  1,  if  we  desire  more,  if  we  must  practice  our 
physiology — why  it  is  better  to  try  a  human  subject. 

Perhaps  it  may  be  imagined  that  I  intend,  in  holding 
this  view  of  the  incarnation,  or  the  person  of  Christ,  to 
deny  that  he  had  a  human  soul,  or  anything  human  but 
a  human  body.  I  only  deny  that  his  human  soul,  oi 
nature,  is  to  be  spoken  of,  or  looked  upon,  as  having  a 
distinct  subsistence,  so  as  to  live,  think,  learn,  worship, 
suffer,  by  itself.  Disclaiming  all  thought  of  denying,  or 
affirming  anything  as  regards  the  interior  composition  or 
construction  of  his  person,  I  insist  that  he  stands  before 
us  in  simple  unity,  one  person,  the  divine-human,  repre¬ 
senting  the  qualities  of  his  double  parentage  as  the  Son  of 
God,  and  the  son  of  Mary.  I  do  not  say  that  he  is 
composed  of  three  elements,  a  divine  person,  a  human 
soul  and  a  human  body ;  nor  of  these  that  they  are  dis¬ 
tinctly  three,  or  absolutely  one.  I  look  upon  him  only 
in  the  external  way  ;  for  he  comes  to  be  viewed  exter 
nally  in  what  may  be  expressed  through  him,  and  not  in 
any  other  way.  As  to  any  metaphysical  or  speculative 
difficulties  involved  in  the  union  of  the  divine  and  the 
human,  I  dismiss  them  all,  by  observing  that  Christ  is  not 
here  for  the  sake  of  something  accomplished  in  his  meta¬ 
physical  or  psychological  interior,  but  for  that  which 
appears  and  is  outwardly  signified  in  his  life.  And  it  is 
certainly  competent  for  God  to  work  out  the  expression 
of  His  own  feeling,  and  His  union  to  the  race  in  what 
way  most  approves  itself  to  Him.  Regarding  Christ  in 
this  exterior,  and,  as  it  were,  esthetic  way,  he  is  that 
Holy  Thing  in  which  my  God  is  brought  to  me, — brought 
£yen  down  to  a  fellow  relation  with  me.  I  shall  not 


IN  CARNATION. 


164 


call  him  two.  I  shall  not  decompose  him  and  label  off 
his  doings,  one  to  the  credit  of  his  divinity,  and  another 
to  the  credit  of  his  humanity.  I  shall  receive  him,  in 
the  simplicity  of  faith,  as  my  one  Lord  and  Saviour,  nor 
any  the  less  so  that  he  is  my  brother. 

I  am  well  advised  of  the  fact,  that  very  few  persons 
have  their  minds  so  far  moderated  by  philosophy  or  rea¬ 
son  as  to  be  able  to  set  any  boundaries  to  their  questions. 
Those  who  can  do  it,  those  who  can  think  it  even  unrea¬ 
sonable  to  investigate  the  interior  of  this  divine  mystery, 
when  it  is  framed  only  for  its  external  significance,  will 
find  the  view  here  given,  simple,  intelligent,  and  full  of 
comfort.  But  those  who  cannot,  must,  of  course,  take 
the  penalty.  If  they  must  still  investigate  what  was  not 
given  to  be  investigated  ;  if  they  must  speculate  still 
about  this  divine-human,  its  modes,  its  interior  possibility 
or  impossibility,  refusing  the  spiritual  brotherhood  of  God, 
till  they  can  satisfy  their  questions  about  the  rhetoric  He 
uses  to  express  it ;  in  a  word,  if  their  most  irrational 
reason  must  sow  to  the  wind,  in  its  questions,  it  can  hope 
to  reap  nothing  better  than  emptiness  and  whirlwind 
for  its  answers.  Enough  that  I  have  shown  them  a 
better  way. 

Adhering,  thus,  immovably  to  the  simple  historic  unity 
of  Christ’s  person,  it  will  be  seen  that,  in  the  reference 
just  now  made  to  those  remarkable  divine  exhibitions,  or 
presentations  made  to  Abraham  and  Moses,  it  was  not 
my  design  to  assert  a  general  parallelism  between  them 
and  the  person  of  Christ.  They  were  cited  only  as  illus¬ 
trations  of  the  particular  matter  there  in  question 
These  were  mere  theophanies — apparitions,  if  I  may  so 


INCARNATION. 


165 


speak,  of  God.  In  one  view,  they  were  not  historical 
at  all ;  for  they  do  not  rise  out  of  historical  elements. 
Christ  is  no  such  theophany,  no  such  casual,  unhistorical 
being  as  the  Jehovah  angel  who  visited  Abraham.  He 
’g  in  and  of  the  race,  born  of  a  woman,  living  in  the  line 
of  humanity,  subject  to  human  conditions,  an  integral 
part,  in  one  view,  of  the  world’s  history ;  only  bringing  into 
it,  and  setting  in  organific  union  with  it,  the  Eternal  Life. 

The  most  plausible  objection  that  can  be  made  to  the 
view  I  am  giving  of  Christ’s  person  is,  that  he  is  too 
exclusively  divine  to  make  an  effectual  approach  to  our 
human  sympathies.  But  it  is  only  plausible.  Obviously, 
nothing  is  gained  in  this  respect,  by  holding  three  meta¬ 
physical  persons  in  the  divine  nature  ;  for  if  still  the 
real  deity  of  the  Son  is  maintained,  (which  I  fear  many 
do  unwittingly  disallow,  when  verbally  asserting  it,)  they 
have  precisely  the  same  remoteness,  the  same  too  exces¬ 
sive  divineness  to  contend  with.  Nor  do  we  gain  any¬ 
thing  as  regards  this  matter  of  sympathy,  by  supposing  a 
distinct  human  soul  in  the  person  of  Christ,  connecting 
itself  with  what  may  be  called  the  humanities  of  Christ. 
Of  what  so  great  consequence  to  us  are  the  humanities 
of  a  mere  human  soul  ?  The  very  thing  we  want,  is  to 
find  that  God  is  moved  by  such  humanities — touched 
with  a  feeling  of  our  infirmities.  And  what  can  bring 
God  closer  to  our  human  sympathies  than  to  behold — if 
only  we  can  believe  so  high  a  mystery — God  manifest  in 
the  flesh,  and  historically  united  with  our  race  ?  There¬ 
fore,  if  you  find  that  Christ  really  comes  down  to  you* 
sphere  only  when  a  half-tint  is  thrown  over  his  deity,  by 
some  confusion  practiced  on  his  person,  I  may  reasonably 


166 


INCARNATION. 


ask,  whether  it  were  not  better  to  add  more  faith  in 
yourself,  and  subtract  less  of  the  divine  from  him — thus 
to  make  him,  indeed  and  in  truth,  the  express  image  of 
God? 

I  have  thus  endeavored  to  verify  the  incarnation.  1 
am  well  aware  that  one  who  discredits  everything  super¬ 
natural,  will  require  something  farther.  But  I  can  only 
intimate,  here,  a  settled  conviction  that,  if  this  great 
question  of  supernaturalism  were  once  put  upon  a  right 
basis,  such  as  a  competent  investigator  might  lay  for  it, 
the  incarnation,  which  now  appears  to  be  a  prodigy  too 
violent  or  stupendous  for  belief,  would  be  seen  to 
emerge  as  the  crowning  result  of  a  grand,  systematic, 
orderly  work,  which  God  has  been  forwarding  in  the  his¬ 
tory  and  heart  of  the  race,  ever  since  the  world  began — - 
that  the  world,  in  fact,  would  be  as  chaotic  and  as  wide 
of  the  true  unity  of  reason  without  an  incarnation,  as 
without  a  sun.  Happily,  most  of  the  later  Unitarians 
maintain  the  credibility  of  that  which  is  supernatural — - 
indeed,  they  even  hold  that  Christ  is,  in  some  very 
special  and  supernatural  sense,  a  manifestation  of  God  ; 
that  the  divine  is,  in  fact,  so  far  supreme  in  him,  as  to 
prevent  the  development  of  a  properly  human,  thus  to 
produce  a  really  sinless  character — and  this  differs,  in 
reality,  from  the  view  I  have  presented,  only  as  a  sub- 
carnation,  from  an  zA-carnation.  Goff  isjiere,  behind  the 
man,  or  under  the  man,  in  such  a  way,  that  the  man 
does  not  act  himself.  We  have  a  man  without  a  man — - 
a  perfect  human  character  which  is  not  unfolded  by  the 
human.  And  thus  we  have  as  much  of  mystery  and 
contradiction,  with  the  disadvantage  that  we  have  no 


TRINITY, 


.67 


countenance  from  the  scripture,  and  a  doctrine,  witnal, 
that  has  too  little  body  and  shape  to  have  any  important 
resulting  use. 

Having  thus  disposed  of  the  difficulties  growing  out  of 
the  relations  of  the  divine  to  the  human,  in  the  person  of 
Christ  received  as  an  incarnation,  I  now  turn, — 

II.  To  those  which  are  involved  in  the  relations  of  his 
person  to  the  Father  and  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and,  of  all,  to 
the  Absolute  Being. 

It  is  a  fatal  objection  to  the  Unitarian  theories  of  this 
subject,  as  viewed  under  the  teaching  of  the  scriptures, 
that  God  is  nowhere  represented,  or  named,  as  the 
Father,  till  after  the  appearing  of  Christ.  It  is  also  an 
objection  equally  fatal  to  the  Sabellian  theory,  which,  as 
commonly  understood,  represents  that  God  is  the  Father, 
in  virtue  of  His  creation  and  government  of  the  world. 
For  if  He  is  the  Father  simply  as  the  one  God,  by  what 
accident  does  it  happen  that  He  never  gets  the  appella¬ 
tion  till  after  the  coming  of  Christ  ?  Or,  if  He  gets  it  as 
the  Creator  and  Governor  of  the  world,  the  world  was 
created  and  governed  long  before  that  day — why,  then, 
is  He  still  unknown  as  the  Father  ?  True,  He  is  called  a 
Father,  just  as  He  is  called  a  rock,  or  a  tower,  but  never 
the  Father,  as  in  the  baptismal  formula,  and  by  Christ 
ordinarily.  There  is,  in  fact,  no  real  and  proper  develop¬ 
ment  of  the  Father,  which  is  older  than  Christianity,  and 
here  the  designation  is  developed  in  connection  with  the 
Son  and  Holy  Spirit  as  a  threefold  denominat’on  of  God. 
And  this  threefold  denomination,  again,  (as  I  think  must 
be  evident,)  is  itself  incidental  to,  and  produced  by  the 


108 


TRINITY. 


central  fact,  or  mystery  of  the  incarnation,  as  an  impel 
sonation  of  God  developed  in  time. 

Thus,  the  Divine  Word,  or  Logos,  who  is  from  eternity 
the  Form  or  in  the  Form  of  God,  after  having  first 
bodied  Him  forth  in  the  creation  and  the  government  of 
the  world,  now  makes  another  outgoing  from  the  Abso¬ 
lute  into  the  human,  to  reside  in  the  human  as  being  of 
it ;  thus  to  communicate  God  to  the  world,  and  thus  to 
ingenerate  in  the  world  Goodness  and  Life  as  from  Him. 
To  make  His  approach  to  man  as  close,  to  identify  Him¬ 
self  as  perfectly  as  possible  with  man,  he  appears,  or 
makes  His  advent  through  a  human  birth — Son  of  man, 
and  Son,  also,  of  God.  Regarding  him  now  in  this 
light  as  set  out  before  the  Absolute  Being,  (who  he 
representatively  is,)  existing  under  the  conditions  of  the 
finite  and  the  relative,  we  see  at  once  that,  for  our  sakes, 
if  not  for  his  own,  he  must  have  set  over  against  him, 
in  the  finite,  his  appropriate  relative  term,  or  imperson¬ 
ation.  A  solitary  finite  thing,  or  person,  that  is,  one  that 
has  no  relative  in  the  finite,  is  even  absurd, — much  more 
if  the  design  be  that  we  shall  ascend,  through  it,  to  the 
Absolute  ;  for  we  can  do  this  only  under  the  great  men¬ 
tal  law  of  action  and  reaction,  which  requires  relative 
terms  and  forces,  between  which  it  may  be  maintained. 
Besides,  there  may  have  been  some  subjective,  or  inter¬ 
nal  necessity,  in  Christ  himself,  (for  we  know  nothing  of 
his  interior  structure  and  wants,)  requiring  that,  in 
order  to  the  proper  support  of  his  attitude,  he  should 
have  in  conception  some  finite  relative  impersonation. 
For  one,  or  both  these  reasons,  when  he  appears  in  the 
human  state,  bringing  the  divine  into  the  human,  there 


TRINITY. 


]fi9 

results,  at  one  and  the  same  time,  a  double  impersonation, 
that  of  the  Father  and  that  of  the  Son, — one  because  of 
the  other,  and  both  as  correspondent  or  relative  terms. 
As  Christ  himself  appears  in  the  finite,  he  calls  out  into 
tne  finite  with  him,  if  I  may  so  speak,  another  represent¬ 
ative  of  the  Absolute,  one  that  is  conceived  to  reside  in 
the  heavens,  as  he  himself  is  seen  to  walk  upon  the 
earth.  This  he  does  to  comfort  his  attitude,  or  more 
probably,  to  make  it  intelligible  ;  for  if  he  were  to  say, 
“  Look  unto  me,  and  behold  your  God,”  then  his  mere 
human  person  would  be  taken  as  a  proof  that  he  is  only 
a  flagrant  and  impious  impostor  ;  or  else,  being  accepted 
as  God  by  those  who  are  more  credulous,  they  would,  in 
fa€t,  receive  a  God  by  apotheosis,  and  under  human 
boundaries.  Therefore,  he  calls  out  into  thought,  as 
residing  in  heaven,  and  possessing  celestial  exaltation, 
the  Father,  who  is,  in  fact,  the  Absolute  Being  brought 
into  a  lively,  conversible,  definite  (therefore  finite)  form 
of  personal  conception,  and  sets  himself  on  terms  of 
relationship  with  him  at  the  other  pole ;  so  that,  while  he 
signifies,  or  reveals  the  light  and  love  of  God,  in  and 
through  the  human  or  subject  life,  he  is  able  to  exalt 
and  deify  what  he  reveals,  by  referring  his  mission  to 
one  that  is  greater  and  higher  in  state  than  himself,  viz., 
the  Father  in  heaven.  And,  in  this  way,  double  advan¬ 
tage  is  taken  both  of  proximity  and  distance,  in  the  pro¬ 
cess  of  revealing  or  expressing  God.  He  does  not  say, 
I  came  forth  from  the  One,  the  Absolute  :  from  Him  that 
dwells  above  time,  silent,  never  moving,  without  parts,  or 
emotions,  but  he  gives  us,  above,  the  conception  of  an 
15 


170 


TRINITY. 


active,  choosing,  feeling  Spirit,  and  says,  “I  came  forth 
from  the  Father.” 

Now  there  is  open  to  view,  a  relationship  between 
heaven  and  earth.  To  keep  us  from  subsiding  into  a 
regard  of  his  simple  person,  as  limited  by  human  bound* 
aries,  and  referring  all  his  works  to  a  being  thus  limited, 
he  intimates  a  connection  with  one  who  has  no  such 
boundaries,  saying,  “  My  Father  is  greater  than  I.”  And 
then,  again,  that  what  he  expresses  may  be  referred  to 
that  essentially  divine  nature  represented  in  his  person, 
he  exalts  his  attitude,  saying,  “I  and  my  Father  are  one.” 
Now  he  says,  “the  Father  loves  me,  ”  and  now,  “he 
that  hath  seen  me,  hath  seen  the  Father.”  And  then, 
again,  determined  to  keep  himself  and  the  whole  process 
under  a  cloud  of  mystery,  so  that  no  one  shall  ever  feel 
that  he  has  gotten  the  measure,  either  of  the  Father  or  of 
himself,  and  that  all  may  be  wading  ever  outward  through 
mystery,  in  both,  towards  the  infinite,  he  says,  “  No  man 
knoweth  the  Son  but  the  Father,  neither  knoweth  any 
man  the  Father,  save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whomsoever 
the  Son  will  reveal  him.”  It  is  a  revealing  process,  but 
yet  enveloped  in  mystery — revealing  even  the  more,  by 
means  of  the  mystery. 

j  Meantime,  it  is  by  setting  ourselves  before  this  per¬ 
sonal  history  of  the  Father  in  heaven,  and  the  Son  on 
earth,  both  as  representatives  standing  out  befoie  the 
Absolute  Being,  watching  the  relative  history  they 
unfold  in  finite  forms,  their  acting  and  interacting,  and 
discovering  what  is  expressed  thereby, — cleared  of  all 
the  repugnant  and  contradictory  matter  that  is  attributa¬ 
ble  to  the  vehicle,  in  distinction  from  the  truth — it  is 


TRINITY. 


171 


thus  that,  we  are  to  ascend,  as  by  a  resultant  of  the  two 
forces,  into  a  lively  realization,  and  a  free,  spiritual 
embrace  of  God,  as  our  Friend,  Redeemer,  Peace,  and 
Portion.  A  mere  philosophic  unity,  it  will  be  seen  at  a 
glance,  is  cold  and  dead,  in  comparison — altogether  insuf¬ 
ficient  to  support  the  Christian  uses  of  the  soul. 

But,  in  order  to  the  full  and  complete  apprehension 
of  God,  a  third  personality,  the  Holy  Spirit,  needs  to 
appear.  By  the  Logos,  in  the  creation,  and  then  by  the 
Logos  in  the  incarnation,  assisted  or  set  off  by  the  Father 
as  a  relative  personality,  God’s  character,  feeling,  and 
truth,  are  now  expressed.  He  has  even  brought  down 
the  mercies  of  His  Heart  to  meet  us  on  our  human  level. 
So  far,  the  expression  made,  is  moral ;  but  there  is  yet 
needed,  to  complete  our  sense  of  God,  the  Absolute, 
another  kind  of  expression,  which  will  require  the  intro¬ 
duction  or  appearance  of  yet  another  and  distinct  kind  of 
impersonation.  We  not  only  want  a  conception  of  God 
in  His  character  and  feeling  towards  us,  but  we  want, 
also,  to  conceive  Him  as  in  act  within  us,  working  in  us, 
under  the  conditions  of  time  and  progression,  spiritual 
results  of  quickening,  deliverance,  and  purification  from 
evil.  Now,  action  of  any  kind  is  representable  to  us 
only  under  the  conditions  of  movement  in  time  and 
space,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  is  not  predicable  of  the 
Absolute  Being  abstractly  contemplated.  God,  in  act, 
therefore,  will  be  giVen  us  by  another  finite,  relative 
impersonation. 

Accordingly,  the  natural  image,  spirit,  that  is,  breath,  is 
taken  up  and  clothed  with  a  personal  activity.  The 


172 


TRINITY. 


word  signifies  air  in  motion,  and  as  air  is  invisible,  it 
becomes  the  symbol  or  type  of  unseen  power  exerted— 
quite  transcendently,  however,  as  regards  our  compre¬ 
hension  ;  for  there  is  really  no  motion  whatever.  The 
word  spirit  had  been  used  before,  as  in  reference  to  the 
agency  of  God,  but  only  in  a  remoter  and  more  tropical 
sense,  as  the  word  Father  had  been  ;  the  conception  of  a 
divine  personality,  or  impersonation,  called  the  Holy 
Spirit,  was  unknown.  We  may  imagine  otherwise,  in 
one  or  two  cases,  as  when  David  prays,  “Take  not  thy 
holy  spirit  from  me,”  but  I  think,  without  any  sufficient 
reason.  Now,  the  Divine  Power,  in  souls,  is  to  be 
developed  under  the  form  of  a  personal  Sanctifier,  related, 
in  a  personal  way,  to  the  Father  and  the  Son,  as  they  to 
each  other.  He  is  conceived,  sometimes,  as  sent  by  the 
Father;  sometimes,  as  proceeding  from  the  Father  and 
the  Son  ;  sometimes  as  shed  forth  from  the  Son  in  his 
exaltation  ;  always  as  a  Divine  Agency,  procured  by  the 
Son,  and  representing,  in  the  form  of  an  operation  within 
us,  that  grace  which  he  reveals  as  feeling  and  intention 
towards  us. 

And  here,  again,  just  as  the  Logos  is  incarnated  in  the 
flesh,  so  the  Spirit  makes  His  advent  under  physical 
stgns,  appropriate  to  His  office,  coming  in  a  rushing 
mighty  wind ;  tipping  the  heads  of  an  assembly  with 
lambent  flames  ;  evidencing  his  power  in  souls,  by  open¬ 
ing  the  lips  of  men,  and  playing  those  utterances  which 
are,  themselves,  expressions  of  the  mind  within  ;  endow¬ 
ing  men  with  gifts  above  their  human  capacity.  Now, 
the  Absolute  Being,  of  whom  we  could  predicate  no 
motion  or  proceeding,  becomes  a  Vital  Presence,  resid- 


TRINITY. 


173 


ing  ever  with  us,  to  work  in  us  all  that  we  need,  and 
strengthen  us  to  that  which  none  but  a  divine  power  can 
support.  What  we  should  not  dare  to  hope,  and  could 
not  otherwise  conceive- -the  Eternal  Life,  declared  and 
manifested  by  Christ,  liveth  in  us. 

Thus  we  have  three  persons,  or  impersonations,  all 
existing  under  finite  conditions  oi  conceptions.  They  are 
relatives,  and,  in  that  view,  are  not  infinites  ;  for  relative 
infinites  are  impossible.  And  yet,  taken  representatively, 
they  are  each  and  all,  infinites  ;  because  they  stand  for, 
and  express  the  Infinite,  Absolute  Jehovah.  They  may 
each  declare,  4 1  am  He  for  what  they  impart  to  us  of 
Him,  is  their  true  reality.  Between  them  all  together,  as 
relatives,  we  are  elevated  to  proximity  and  virtual  con¬ 
verse  with  Him  who  is  above  our  finite  conditions, — 
the  Unapproachable,  and,  as  far  as  all  measures  of  thought 
or  conception  are  concerned,  the  Unrepresentable  God. 

The  Father  plans,  presides,  and  purposes  for  us  ;  the 
Son  expresses  his  intended  mercy,  proves  it,  brings  it 
down  even  to  the  level  of  a  fellow-feeling;  the  Spirit 
works  within  us  the  beauty  he  reveals,  and  the  glory 
beheld  in  his  Life.  The  Father  sends  the  Son,  the 
Son  delivers  the  grace  of  the  Father  ;  the  Father  dis¬ 
penses,  and  the  Son  procures  the  Spirit ;  the  Spirit  pro¬ 
ceeds  from  the  Father  and  Son,  to  fulfill  the  purpose 
<Df  one,  and  the  expressed  feeling  of  the  other  ;  each  and 
all  together  dramatize  and  bring  forth  into  life  about 
us  that  Infinite  One,  who,  to  our  mere  thought,  were  no 
better  than  Brama  sleeping  <in  eternity  and  the  stars. 
Now,  the  sky,  so  to  speak,  is  beginning  to  be  full  of 
Divine  Activities,  heaven  is  married  to  earth,  and 
15* 


174 


TRINITY. 


earth  to  heaven,  and  the  Absolute  Jehovah,  whose  nature 
we  before  could  nowise  comprehend,  but  dimly  know, 
and  yet  more  dimly  feel,  has,  by  these  outgoings,  waked 
up  in  us,  all  living  images  of  His  love  and  power  and 
presence,  and  set  the  whole  world  in  a  glow. 

There  is,  then,  according  to  the  view  now  presented,  a 
real  and  proper  trinity  in  the  scriptures ;  three  persons, 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost, — one  God.  If  it  be 
objected  that  the  word  trinity  is  not  here,  neither  is  the 
term  free  agency.  There  certainly  can  be  no  harm  in 
the  use  of  such  terms  as  mere  terms  of  convenience,  if 
we  are  careful  not  to  derive  our  doctrine  from  them. 
That  there  is,  in  the  scriptures,  a  three-foldness,  which 
contains  the  real  matter  of  a  trinity,  is  to  me  undeniable, 
and,  if  I  am  right  in  the  views  now  presented,  it  must  be 
of  the  highest  consequence  to  religion,  that  this  trinity  be 
admitted,  cordially  accepted,  lived  in  as  a  power — a 
vitalizing  element  offered  to  our  souls,  as  the  air  to  the 
life  of  our  bodies.  Every  human  soul  that  will  adequately 
work  itself  in  religion,  needs  this  trinity  as  the  instrument 
of  its  working  ;  for,  without  this,  it  is  neither  possible  to 
preserve  the  warmth,  nor  to  ascend  into  the  true  great¬ 
ness  of  God. 

Neither  is  it  any  so  great  wisdom,  as  many  theolo¬ 
gians  appear  to  fancy,  to  object  to  the  word  person  ;  for, 
if  anything  is  clear,  it  is  that  the  Three  of  scripture  do 
appear  under  the  grammatic  forms  which  are  appropiitucj 
to  person — I,  Thou,  He,  We,  and  They  ;  and,  if  it  be  so, 
I  really  do  not  perceive  the  very  great  license  taken  by 
our  theology,  when  they  are  called  three  persons.  Be 


TRINITY. 


175 


sides,  we  practically  need,  for  our  own  sake,  to  set  them  out 
as  three  persons  before  us,  acting  relatively  toward  each 
other,  in  order  to  ascend  into  the  liveliest,  fullest  realiza¬ 
tion  of  God.  We  only  need  to  abstain  from  assigning  to 
these  divine  persons  an  interior,  metaphysical  nature, 
which  we  are  nowise  able  to  investigate,  or  which  we 
may  positively  know  to  contradict  the  real  unity  of 
God. 

Do  you  then  ask,  whether  I  mean  simply  to  assert  a 
modal  trinity,  or  three  modal  persons  ? — I  must  answer 
obscurely,  just  as  I  answered  in  regard  to  the  humanity 
of  Christ.  If  I  say  that  they  are  modal  only,  as  the 
word  is  commonly  used,  I  may  deny  more  than  I  am 
justified  in  denying,  or  am  required  to  deny,  by  the 
ground  I  have  taken.  I  will  only  say  that  the  trinity,  or 
the  three  persons,  are  given  to  me  for  the  sake  of  their 
external  expression,  not  for  the  internal  investigation  of 
their  contents.  If  I  use  them  rationally  or  wisely,  then, 
I  shall  use  them  according  to  their  object.  I  must  not 
intrude  upon  their  interior  nature,  either  by  assertion  or 
denial.  They  must  have  their  reality  to  me  in  what 
they  express  when  taken  as  the  wording  forth  of  God. 
Perhaps  I  shall  come  nearest  to  the  simple,  positive  idea 
of  the  trinity  here  maintained,  if  I  call  it  an  Instrumen¬ 
tal  Trinity,  and  the  persons  Instrumental  Persons. 
There  may  be  more  in  them  than  this,  which  let  others 
declare  when  they  find  it.  Enough,  meantime,  for  me,  that 
there  is  this  ; — that  in  and  through  these  living  persons,  or 
impersonations,  I  find  the  Infinite  One  brought  down  even 
to  my  own  level  of  humanity,  without  any  loss  of  His 
greatness,  or  reduction  of  His  majesty.  And  if  they 


176 


TRINITY. 


help  me  to  this,  I  see  not  anything  more  of  so  great  con 
sequence  for  them  to  give  me,  even  if  I  could  read  their 
most  interior  nature,  and  resolve  all  problems  concerning 
them.  I  perceive,  too,  that  God  may  as  well  offer  Himself 
to  me,  in  these  persons,  as  through  trees,  or  storms,  or 
stars  ; — that  they  involve  as  little  contrariety,  as  few  limi¬ 
tations,  and  yield  as  much  more  of  warmth  as  they  have 
more  of  life.  I  discover,  also,  that  this  threeness  helps  me 
the  more,  and  lifts  me  the  higher,  because  it  baffles  me.  If  1 
think  it  more  philosophical  and  simple  to  conceive  God  only 
as  one  person,  that  person  will  really  be  a  finite  conception, 
unwittingly,  though  very  absurdly,  taken  as  Infinite. 
And  then,  as  the  God  shrinks,  the  mind  freezes.  The 
simplicity  it  so  much  admired,  after  all,  brings  disappoint¬ 
ment.  The  ease  of  this  philosophic  unity  is  itself  a  great 
fault ;  for  it  is  as  if  we  had  God’s  measure,  and  saw  His 
boundaries.  He  is  too  clear  to  be  Infinite  ;  and,  what  is 
even  worse,  too  clear  to  have  His  warmth  in  the  soul. 
We  do  not  rise  to  the  Infinite  by  simple  thought  or  direct 
contemplation,  we  are  borne  up  to  that  height  only  by  a 
resultant  motion,  between  relative  and  partially  repug¬ 
nant  forces,  such  as  we  find  in  the  three  persons  of  scrip¬ 
ture.  Through  a  certain  feeling  of  multiplicity  and  vague¬ 
ness,  we  are  able  to  realize  God  dynamically,  as  we  could 
through  no  definite  conception  of  Him.  Represented  as 
three,  God  is  yet  one — the  more  magnificently  one,  be¬ 
cause  He  is  three.  The  soul  has  her  sublimation,  because 
she  is  held  in  a  maze,  and  God  is  warm,  because  He  is  a 
mystery.  Meanwhile,  if  our  feeling  is,  at  any  time,  con¬ 
fused  by  these  persons  or  impersonations,  we  are  to  have  it 
for  a  fixed,  first  truth,  that  God  is,  in  the  most  perfect  and 


TRINITY. 


177 


rigid  sense,  one  being — a  pure  intelligence,  undivided, 
indivisible,  and  infinite  ;  and  that  whatever  may  be  true 
of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  it  certainly  is  not 
true  that  they  are  three  distinct  consciousnesses,  wills,  and 
understandings.  Or,  speaking  in  a  way  more  positive, 
they  are  instrumentally  three — i.  e.  for,  and  as  related  to, 
our  finite  apprehension  and  the  communication  of  God’s 
incommunicable  nature. 

But  some  one,  I  suppose,  will  require  of  me  to  answer 
whether  the  three  persons  are  eternal,  or  only  occasional 
and  to  be  discontinued  ?  Undoubtedly  the  distinction  of 
the  Word,  or  the  power  of  self- representation  in  God  thus 
denominated,  is  eternal.  And  in  this,  we  have  a  perma¬ 
nent  ground  of  possibility  for  the  threefold  impersonation, 
called  trinity.  Accordingly,  if  God  has  been  eternally 
revealed,  or  revealing  Himself  to  created  minds,  it  is 
likely  always  to  have  been  and  always  to  be  as  the 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost.  Consequently,  it  may 
always  be  in  this  manner  that  we  shall  get  our  impres¬ 
sions  of  God.  and  have  our  communion  with  Him.  As 
an  accommodation  to  all  finite  minds  in  the  universe,  it 
may  be  the  purpose  of  Jehovah  to  be  known  by  this 
divine  formula  forever.  That  which  most  discourages  such 
a  belief  is  the  declaration  of  Paul — “When  all  things 
shall  be  subdued  unto  him,  then  shall  the  Son  also  him¬ 
self  be  subject  unto  him  that  did  put  all  things  under 
him,  that  God  may  be  all  and  i  *-  all.”  I  will  not  go  into 
a  discussion  of  these  very  remarkable  words  ;  for  I  do 
not  care  to  open  God’s  secrets  before  the  time.  Let  the 
future  bring  the  future,  and  I  know  it  will  not  be  amiss 
when  it  comes.  Enough  for  me,  now,  that  by  these  dear 


t 


178 


TRINITY. 


names,  my  God  proves  His  warmth,  and  pours  His  full¬ 
ness  into  my  heart — that,  without  them,  torpor  settles 
on  my  religious  nature,  and  the  boasted  clearness 
of  a  God  made  level  to  reason,  is  the  clearness  of  a 
wintry  day. 

I  suppose  the  position  I  have  taken  would  be  more 
acceptable  to  some,  were  I  to  throw  in  the  intimation 
given  by  Neander,  when  ascribing  a  similar  view  to  the 
apostles.  Thus  he  says  that  the  trinity  “has  an  essen¬ 
tially  practical  and  historical  significance  and  founda¬ 
tion  ;  it  is  the  doctrine  of  God  revealed  in  the  humanity, 
which  teaches  men  to  recognize  in  God,  not  only  the 
original  source  of  existence,  but  of  salvation  and  sancti¬ 
fication.  From  this  trinity  of  revelation,  as  far  as  the 
divine  causality  images  itself  in  the  same,  the  reflective 
mind,  according  to  the  analogy  of  its  own  being,  pursuing 
this  track,  seeks  to  elevate  itself  to  the  idea  of  an  original 
triad  in  God,  availing  itself  of  the  intimations  which  are 
contained  in  John’s  doctrine  of  the  Logos  and  the  cog¬ 
nate  elements  of  the  Pauline  theology.”  If  now  it  be 
inquired  whether,  beginning  with  a  doctrine  of  trinity, 
produced  by  the  process  of  revelation,  and  adequately 
accounted  for  as  necessary  to  that  process,  I  would  then 
turn  to  hunt  for  some  “  analogy”  in  myself,  and  try  to 
climb  up  thus,  through  myself,  into  a  discovery  of  an 
original  triad  in  God — convincing  myself,  also,  that  John 
and  Paul  give  “intimations”  of  such  a  triad,  I  frankly 
answer,  no.  The  expression  of  such  a  hope  might  com 
fort  some  who  would  otherwise  be  disturbed,  but  it  will 
only  mislead  a  much  greater  number,  who  had  better 
keep  their  discretion.  If  God  has  given  us  an  i  strumen 


T  r  T  N  I  T  Y  . 


179 


tal  triad,  which  is  good  for  its  purposes  of  revelation, 
there  can  be  no  greater  fraud  upon  it  than  to  set  our¬ 
selves  to  the  discovery  of  an  original  triad  back  of  it, 
that  has  no  instrumental  character,  and  has  nothing  to  do 
with  revelation.  It  is  just  the  way  to  confuse  and  lead 
us  off  from  every  proper  use  and  construction  of  the 
trinity  God  has  given  us.  In  just  this  way  it  is,  too,  that 
the  trinity  has  been  made  a  source  of  so  great  controversy 
and  so  little  profit,  in  all  past  ages — it  has  been  turned 
into  a  metaphysical  problem,  and  its  instrumental  charac¬ 
ter,  as  the  representative  development  of  God,  has,  oi 
necessity,  been  hidden  from  the  view.  Besides,  what  wis¬ 
dom  are  we  likely  to  arrive  at,  better  than  the  shadowy 
vagaries  others,  in  past  ages,  have  conjured  up,  by  hunt¬ 
ing  our  human  spirit  through,  to  find  some  Platonic  triad 
there,  which  shall  solve  the  trinity  of  persons  in  God  ? 
Let  us  rather  baptize  our  over-curious  spirit  into  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  teach  it  quietly  to  rest  in  what  of  God’s 
Infinite  nature  it  may  there  receive.  We  talk  of  simpli¬ 
city,  often,  when  upon  this  matter  of  trinity — as  we 
rightly  may.  O,  that  we  had  simplicity  enough  to  let 
God  be  God,  and  the  revelation  He  gives  us,  a  revela¬ 
tion  ! — neither  trying  to  make  Him  a  finite  person  alter 
our  own  human  model,  nor  ourselves  three  that  we  may 
bring  our  humanity  up  to  solve  the  mysteries  cf  His 
Absolute,  Infinite  substance !  There  is  no  so  true  simplicity 
as  that  which  takes  the  practical  at  its  face,  uses  instru 
ments  as  instruments,  however  complex  and  mysterious, 
(for  what  is  more  so  than  a  man’s  own  body,)  and  refuses 


180 


CONCLUSION. 


to  be  cheated  of  the  uses  of  life,  by  an  over-curioua 
questioning  of  that  which  God  has  given  for  its  uses. 

This  view  of  Christ  and  the  trinity  differs,  I  am  aware, 
in  some  respects,  from  that  which  is  commonly  held  ; 
but  I  hope  the  difference  will  not  disturb  you.  I  have 
known  no  other  since  I  began  to  be  a  preacher  of  Christ, 
and  my  experience  teaches  me  to  want  no  other.  If  it 
has  delivered  me  from  agonies  of  mental  darkness  and 
confusion  concerning  God,  which,  at  one  time,  seemed 
insupportable,  it  cannot  be  wrong  to  hope  that  God  will 
make  the  truth  a  deliverance  equally  comfortable  and 
joyful  to  some  of  you. 

Observe,  too,  in  closing,  what  an  outlay  God  has  made 
to  communicate  or  manifest  Himself  to  our  race.  In 
His  own  Absolute  nature,  God  is  a  being  so  vast  that, 
when  I  drew  out  the  conception  of  Him  as  existing  in 
Himself,  I  presume  it  was  somewhat  painful  to  you,  so 
remote  was  it  from  all  your  own  personal  modes  of  being 
and  life,  as  a  finite  creature.  And  yet  it  will  be 
difficult  for  any  one  to  dispute  the  necessity  of  such  a 
conception  of  God,  when  taken  as  Absolute,  and  as 
viewed  by  abstract  thought  or  contemplation.  But 
what  have  we  seen  ?  This  Transcendent  Being  strug¬ 
gling  out,  so  to  speak,  into  the  measures  of  human  know¬ 
ledge,  revealing  Himself  through  the  petty  modes  and 
molds  of  our  finite  nature  !  He  fills  the  whole  i  ini  verse 
with  actions  and  reactions,  such  as  will  bring  us  into 
lively  acquaintance  with  Him.  He  comes  in\o  the 
human  itself,  and  melts  into  the  history  of  man  tl  rough 
agonies,  sorrows,  and  tears.  He  kindles  heavei  and 
earth  into  a  glow,  by  the  relative  activities  of  Father 


CONCLUSION. 


181 


Son,  and  Holy  Ghost.  And  for  what  ?  Simply  to  com¬ 
municate  Himself,  to  express  His  nature  and  His  feeling 
What,  then,  does  our  everlasting  God  and  Father  plan  for, 
but  to  bestow  Himself  upon  us  ?  And  it  is  in  this  view, 
ihat  the  Blessed  Three  come  to  me  with  a  sound  so  dear, 
and  a  burden  of  love  so  rich.  I  see  therein  how  earnestly 
my  God  desires  to  be  known  and  possessed  by  me, — by 
you  as  truly,  by  all,  by  every  human  creature.  What 
breathing  man  is  there  of  you,  around  whom  the  Triune 
is  not  circling  here  as  a  day  of  light  and  love  ?  The 
Incommunicable  is  communicated,  brought  down  even  to 
be  fellow  to  you,  that  you  may  know  Him  and  love 
Him!  He  waits  to  be  received,  to  clear  away  youi 
darkness,  to  purge  you  from  your  sin,  and  be  in  yc  the 
fullness  of  Him  that  fil  eth  all  in  all. 

16 


A 


DISCOURSE 


ON  THE 

ATONEMENT, 

DELIVERED  BEFORE 

THE  DIVINITY  SCHOOL 

IN 

HARVARD  UNIVERSITY, 


JULY  9,  1848. 


THE  ATONEMENT. 


You  have  called  me  to  occupy,  this  evening,  a  singulai 
and,  in  the  same  view,  difficult  and  responsible  office. 
Which  office,  however,  I  most  readily  undertake,  because 
I  seem  to  have  a  subject  and  a  duty  appointed  me  also. 

It  cannot  be  improper,  in  the  circumstances,  to  say 
that  when  your  letter  came,  inviting  me  to  perform  this 
exercise,  I  had  just  emerged  from  a  state  of  protracted 
suspense,  or  mental  conflict,  in  reference  to  what  is 
called,  theologically,  the  doctrine  of  Atonement;  that  is,  of 
the  life  and  death  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  the  Saviour  of  the 
world.  The  practical  moment  of  Christ’s  work  had  been 
sufficiently  plain,  but  the  difficulty  had  been  to  bring  its 
elements  into  one  theologic  view.  The  subject  had  for 
many  years  been  hung  up  before  me,  and  I  had  been 
perusing  it  on  all  sides,  trying  it  by  manifold  experiments, 
and  refusing  to  decide  by  the  will,  what  could  only  be 
cleared  by  light,  till  now,  at  last,  the  question  had  seemed 
to  open  itself  and  display  its  reasons.  And  when  your 
letter  was  laid  upon  my  table,  I  was  at  that  moment 
engaged  in  projecting  a  discourse  that  should  embody, 
what  1  dared,  somewhat  enthusiastically,  to  hope  m  gh 
16* 


186 


ATONEMENT. 


prove  a  tiue  solulion  of  this  momentous,  but  very  difficult 
subject.  Instiga.ed  by  the  same  incautious  warmth,  I 
accepted  the  occasion  offered,  as  offered  not  to  me,  but 
to  my  subject,  and  forthwith  set  apart  one  to  the  uses  of 
the  other. 

If,  now,  a  short  interval  of  time  and  a  formal  prepara¬ 
tion  of  the  subject  have  somewhat  sobered  my  confidence, 
if  I  no  longer  dream  of  the  possibility  that  I  may  solve  so 
great  a  question  to  the  satisfaction  of  any  one,  I  do  yet 
cherish  a  hope  that  the  view  I  may  offer  will  lead  to  a 
reinvestigation  of  the  whole  question,  and  thus,  at  length, 
towards  a  reconstruction  of  our  present  theological  affini¬ 
ties  ;  or,  if  this  be  too  much,  towards  a  reduction  of  our 
present  theological  antipathies.  Or,  again,  if  this  be  too 
much,  it  will  at  least  be  something,  if  I  am  able  to  go 
directly  down  into  the  arena  and  take  up,  in  manful 
earnest,  the  old  first  question  over  which  our  fathers 
panted  in  the  dust  of  controversy,  discussing  it  anew  by 
your  permission,  and  without  offence  to  your  Christian 
hospitalities.  For  it  would  be  a  public  shame,  even  to 
Christianity  itself,  if  I  were  to  come  before  you  on  such 
an  occasion  as  this,  and  in  such  a  theologic  relation,  here 
to  speak  as  one  that  is  cautiously  imprisoned  within  the 
limits  of  some  neutral  subject,  neither  trusting  you,  nor 
daring  for  myself,  to  hazard  the  mention  of  any  point  in 
litigation  between  us.  I  consider  it  also  to  be  only  a 
just  compliment,  in  return  for  the  very  unexampled  cour¬ 
tesies  I  am  accepting,  to  assume  that  your  spirit  is  as 
broad  as  your  ’nvitation ;  that  you  have  called  me  to 
speak,  because  you  desired  to  hear  me  speak  my  own 


ATONEMENT. 


187 


sentiments,  and  not  to  see  how  well  I  can  accommodate 
any  favorite  opinion  held  by  yourselves. 

The  text  I  had  chosen  for  my  discourse,  at  the  time 
referred  to,  was  : — 

1  John,  i.  2. — “For  the  Life  was  manifested ,  and  we 
have  seen  it ,  and  hear  witness,  and  shew  unto  you  that 
eternal  life  which  was  with  the  Father,  and  was  mani¬ 
fested  unto  us.” 

This  particular  passage  of  scripture  has  seemed  to  me 
to  offer  one  of  the  most  comprehensive  and  most  deliber¬ 
ate  announcements  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  that  is  any 
where  given  in  the  sacred  writings,  with  the  advantage 
that  it  is  yet  so  far  unoccupied  as  not  to  have  become  a 
technic,  under  the  wear  of  any  theory.  In  the  verse  pre¬ 
vious,  the  writer  opens  by  setting  forth  the  fact,  as  I  sup¬ 
pose,  of  a  divine  incarnation  in  the  person  of  Jesus.  By 
the  Word,  or  Word  of  Life,  that  peculiar  power  in  the 
Divine  nature  by  which  God  is  able  to  represent  Him¬ 
self  outwardly  in  the  forms  of  things,  first  in  the  worlds 
and  now  in  the  human  person,  which  is  the  liveliest  type 
of  feeling  possible,  and  closest  to  God — by  this  Word  of 
Life,  God  has  now  expressed  Llimself.  He  has  set  forth 
His  Divine  feeling  even  to  sense  and  as  a  fellow-feeling 
— He  has  entered  into  human  history,  as  one  of  its 
biographic  elements.  We  have  seen,  looked  upon, 
handled  what  may  thus  be  known  of  Him.  Then,  he 
adds — throwing  in  a  parenthesis  which  is  to  be  a  ?  olution 
of  the  whole  evangelic  history— “for  the  Life  was  mani 


188 


DOCTRINE  STATED 


fested,  and  we  have  seen  it,  and  bear  witness,  and  shew 
unto  you  that  Eternal  Life,  which  was  with  the  Fathei 
and  was  manifested  unto  us.” 

Observe  three  points  in  this  very  peculiar  language. 
First,  there  is  a  manifestation  of  something,  the  mission 
of  the  Word  is  looked  upon  inclusively  as  a  manifestation, 
that  is,  a  coming  into  visibility  of  something  before 
invisible.  Secondly,  it  is  the  Life  that  was  manifested — 
not  life  generally  speaking,  but  the  Life.  And,  thirdly, 
as  if  to  distinguish  it  in  a  yet  more  definite  manner,  it  is 
called  that  Life,  that  Eternal  Life,  that  Eternal  Life  that 
was  with  the  Father,  and  was  manifested  unto  us. 

Taking,  now,  these  three  terms,  in  connection  with  the 
assumption,  elsewhere  made,  that  our  human  race,  under 
sin,  are  alienated  from  the  life  of  God ;  also,  with  the 
declaration  of  Christ,  that,  as  the  Father  hath  life  in 
Himself,  so  he  hath  given  to  the  Son,  as  the  world’s 
Redeemer,  to  have  life  in  himself ;  and,  again,  with 
that  deep  utterance  of  joy  sent  forth  by  an  emancipated 
soul  ; — “for  the  law  of  the  spirit  of  life  in  Christ  Jesus, 
hath  made  me  free  from  the  law  of  sin  and  death” — taking 
the  text,  I  say,  in  connection  with  these  others,  as  com¬ 
mentaries,  we  have  a  good  synoptic  view,  it  seems  to 
me,  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Messiah. 

It  is  not  that  Christ  is  a  man,  a  human  teacher,  who 
is  sent  to  reform  us  by  his  words  and  his  beautiful  human 
example,  but  it  is  to  this  effect : — All  souls  have  their 
proper  life  only  in  the  common  vivifying  life  of  God. 
Sin,  being  a  w /  thdrawal  into  self  and  self-hood,  separates 
them  from  the  life,  and,  as  far  as  their  own  freedom  is 
concerned,  denies  all  influx  of  the  Divine  into  their  char- 


FROM  TIIE  SCRIPTURES. 


180 


acter  and  their  religious  nature.  Passing  thus  into  a 
state  of  negation,  as  regards  the  Divine  all-sustaining 
life,  they  become  imprisoned  in  darkness,  unbelief,  idol¬ 
atry,  and  a  general  captivity  to  sense.  And  now  the 
Life  is  manifested  in  sense ;  in  Christ  is  life,  and  the 
life  is  the  light  of  men.  Christ  enters  into  human  feel¬ 
ing,  by  his  incarnate  charities  and  sufferings,  to  re-en¬ 
gage  the  world’s  love  and  reunite  the  world,  as  free, 
to  the  Eternal  Life.  To  sum  up  all  in  one  condensed 
and  luminous  utterance,  every  word  of  which  is  power, 
God  was  in  Christ ,  reconciling  the  world  unto  Himself. 
The  apostle  says  nothing  here,  it  will  be  observed,  of 
reconciling  God  to  men,  he  only  speaks  of  reconciling 
men  to  God.  Had  he  said  “the  Life  of  God  was  mani¬ 
fested  in  Jesus  Christ,  to  quicken  the  world  in  love  and 
truth,  and  reunite  it  to  Himself,”  he  would  have  said  the 
same  thing  under  a  different  form. 

I  am  well  aware  that,  in  offering  such  a  statement,  as 
the  true  doctrine  of  Christ  and  his  work,  I  affirm  nothing 
that  is  distinctively  orthodox,  and  shall  even  seem  to 
rule  out  that  view  of  Christ  as  a  sacrifice,  an  expiation 
for  sin,  a  vicarious  offering,  which,  to  the  view  of  most 
orthodox  Christians,  contains  the  real  import  of  his 
work  as  a  Saviour.  It  will  be  found,  however,  that  I  am 
proceeding  exactly  in  the  line  of  the  scriptures,  and  I 
trust  also  it  will  appear,  before  I  have  done,  that  the 
scriptures  advance  two  distinct  views  of  Christ  and  his 
work,  which  are  yet  radically  one  and  the  same. 

I.  A  subjective,  speculative — one  that  contemplates 
the  work  of  Christ  in  its  ends,  and  views  it  as  a  wrwer 
related  to  its  ends. 


190 


DOCTRINE  S  T A  T  E D 


II.  An  objective,  ritualistic — one  that  sets  him  forth  to 
faith,  instead  of  philosophy,  and  one,  without  which,  as 
an  Altar  Form  for  the  soul,  he  would  not  be  the  power 
intended,  or  work  the  ends  appointed. 

Thus,  when  it  is  inquired,  as  in  the  first  form  specified, 
for  what  end  did  Christ  come  into  the  world,  we  have  a 
class  of  terms  in  the  scripture  which  can  scarcely  get 
any  proper  meaning,  if  what  is  said  under  the  second 
form  is  considered  to  be  the  whole  doctrine  of  Christ. 
The  converse  also  is  equally  true.  The  real  problem  is 
to  find  a  place  and  a  meaning  for  all  that  is  said  concern¬ 
ing  him — to  effect  a  union  of  the  two  sides. 

As  examples  of  the  manner  in  which  the  scriptures 
make  answer,  when  the  question  is,  for  what  ends  did 
Christ  come  into  the  world,  we  have  the  following : — 

“  To  this  end  was  I  born,  and  for  this  cause  came  I 
into  the  world,  to  bear  witness  to  the  truth,” — a  passage 
that  is  remarkable  as  being  the  most  direct,  specific,  and 
formal  statement  Christ  ever  made  of  the  object  of  his 
Messiahship ;  and  here  he  says,  that  he  came  to  bring 
truth  into  the  world. 

“  I  am  the  way,  the  truth,  and  the  life ;” — “  I  am 
the  light  of  the  world,” — are  declarations  of  a  similar 
import. 

“  Unto  you,  first,  God  having  raised  up  his  Son  Jesus, 
sent  him  to  bless  you,,  in  turning  away  every  one  of  you 
from  his  iniquities.”  c  Who  gave  himself  for  us,  that  he 
might  redeem  us  from  all  iniquity,  and  purify  unto  Him¬ 
self  a  peculiar  people,  zealous  of  good  works,” — where 
the  end  of  his  mission  is  declared  to  be  a  moral  effect, 
wrought  in  the  mind  of  the  race. 


FROM  TIIE  SCRIPTURES, 


191 


For  this  purpose,  the  Son  of  God  was  manifested,  that 
he  might  destroy  the  works  of  the  devil” — a  passage 
declaring  the  precise  object  of  the  incarnation  as  affirmed 
in  my  text ;  and,  as  the  work  of  the  devil  is  not  the  pun¬ 
ishment,  but  the  corruption  of  his  followers,  we  are 
brought  to  the  same  conclusion  as  before. 


In  all  these  citations,  we  have  so  many  echoes  of  the 
one  just  produced,  as  the  grand,  comprehensive  doctrine 
of  Christ’s  work,  or  mission : — God  in  Christ,  recon 
ciling  the  world  unto  himself.  And  I  affirm,  without 
hesitation,  that  w  henever  the  question  is  about  the  end  of 
Christ’s  work,  that  end  to  which  he  stands  related  as  the 
wisdom  and  power  of  God,  the  answer  of  the  scripture 
will  be,  that  he  comes  to  renovate  character ;  to  quicken 
by  the  infusion  of  the  divine  life ;  in  one  word,  that  he 
comes  to  be  a  Saviour,  as  saving  his  people  from  their 


sms. 


Then,  again,!  to  show  that  a  view  is  offered  of  Christ, 


in  the  writings  especially  of  the  apostles,  which  is  wholly 
different  from  this,  one  that  speaks  of  him  as  a  propitia¬ 
tion,  a  sacrifice,  as  bearing  our  sins,  bearing  the  curse  for 

remission  by  his  blood,  is  altogether 
In  the  Epistles  to  the  Romans,  the  Gala- 
-ews,  those  of  Peter  and  John,  this  altar 
view  or  form  of  Christ,  appears  even  as  the  eminent,  or 
super-eminent  truth  of  the  gospel. 

Omitling,  therefore,  because  it  is  unnecessary,  to  offer 
any  particular  citations  to  this  effect,  I  will  simply  refer 
you  to  a  passage  that  is  remarkable,  as  being  an  instance 
where  one  view  runs  into  the  other,  and  the  altar  form 
becomes,  in  the  issue,  a  renovating  power.  The  eighth 


us,  obtaining 
unnecessary,  t 
tiansfme  Heb 


4 


192 


THE  PROTESTANT  VIEWS 


chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  opens  with  a  look 
toward  sacrifice,  describing  Christ  as  a  “ priest”  “having 
somewhat  to  offer,”  but  still  as  “  having  obtained  a  more 
excellent  ministry”  than  the  priests  of  the  law,  and 
rought  in  for  us  a  “better  covenant.”  How  better? 
Jecause  it  has  a  more  transforming  power  in  the  life, 
because  it  fulfills  a  better  and  higher  design,  writing  the 
law  in  the  heart — “  I  will  put  my  laws  into  their  mind, 
and  write  them  in  their  hearts .”  Here  the  objective, 
ritual  view  passes  into  the  subjective,  and  reveals  the 
fact  that  it  has  and  was  designed  to  have  a  renovating 
power  in  character ; — thus,  becoming  a  “  new”  and 
“  better  covenant.”  Accordingly,  I  design  to  show  that, 
if  the  first  or  subjective  view  of  Christ,  that  in  which  I 
state  the  end  and  aim  of  Christ’s  work,  is  true,  that  end 
or  aim  could  not  be  effectively  realized  without  the 
second,  or  objective  view,  in  which  his  whole  work  is 
conceived  in  the  altar  form,  and  held  forth  to  the  objec¬ 
tive  embrace  and  worship  and  repose  of  faith. 

I  am  well  aware  of  the  insufficiency  and  necessary 
obscurity  of  these  brief  statements.  I  offer  them  only  to 
give  a  general  indication  of  the  course  and  scope  of  my 
argument.  And  you  will  not  require  of  me  to  be  as 
intelligible  here,  as  at  the  close ;  for  it  will  be  the  princi¬ 
pal  object,  or  work  of  my  discourse,  to  set  forth  and 
bring  into  unity  this  double,  subjective-objective  view  of 
Christ  and  his  work. 

But  before  I  engage  more  immediately  in  the  effort 
thus  undertaken,  it  may  be  useful  to  glance,  a  moment, 
at  some  of  the  opinions  that  have  been  held  or  advanced, 


STATED  AND  DISCUSSED. 


193 


at  different  times,  concerning  the  nature  and  import  of 
the  atonement.  A  historic  review  of  the  whole  subject 
would  be  useful,  but  this,  the  limitations  I  am  under  forbid. 
The  first  churches  appear  to  have  had  no  theoretic  view 
of  the  work  of  Christ, — they  only  received  him  as  the 
love  of  God,  the  sacrifice  that  brought  them  into  peace, 
and  united  them  again  to  the  life  of  God.  Irenaeus 
is  said  to  have  opened  the  dogmatic  history  of  the  subject, 
or  made  a  beginning  of  speculative  theology  in  it,  by 
representing  the  death  of  Christ  as  a  ransom  paid  to  the 
devil,  to  buy  us  off  from  the  claims  he  had  upon  us. 
From  that  time  to  the  present,  it  has  ever  been  held,  on 
the  orthodox  side  of  the  Church,  to  be  a  redemptive  offer¬ 
ing  paid  to  God, — not,  however,  in  any  such  form  as 
indicates  the  existence  of  a  settled  and  uniform  opinion 
of  the  subject.  There  is  a  general  concurrence  in  the 
words  vicarious,  expiation,  offering,  substitute,  and  the 
like,  but  no  agreement  as  to  the  manner  in  which  they 
are  to  get  their  meaning.  Sometimes,  the  analogy  of 
criminal  law  is  taken ;  and  then  our  sins  are  spoken  of  as 
being  transferred  to  Christ,  or  he  as  having  accepted 
them  to  bear  their  penalty.  Sometimes  the  civil  or  com-  f 
inercial  law  furnishes  the  analogy;  and  then  our  sins, l 
being  taken  as  a  debt,  Christ  offers  himself  as  a  ransom 
for  us.  Or,  the  analogy  of  the  ceremonial  law  is  accepted  ; 
and  then  Christ  is  set  forth  as  a  propitiatory,  or  expia-  j 
?  y  offering,  to  obtain  remission  of  sins  for  us.  Regard¬ 
ing  Christ  as  suffering  for  us,  in  one  or  another  of  these 
scripture  forms  or  figures,  taken  as  the  literal  dogmatic 
truth,  we  have  as  many  distinct  theories.  Then,  again, 
different  as  these  figures  are  from  each  other,  they  will 
17 


194 


THE  PROTESTANT  VIEWS 


yet  be  used  interchangeably,  all  in  the  sense  of  one  of 
another  of  them.  And  then,  again,  to  double  the  confu¬ 
sion  yet  once  more,  we  have  two  sets  of  representations 
produced  under  each,  accordingly  as  Christ  is  conceived  to 
offer  himself  to  Jehovah’s  justice,  or  as  Jehovah  is  con¬ 
ceived  Himself  to  prepare  the  offering,  out  of  His  own 
mercy. 

On  the  whole,  I  know  of  no  definite  and  fixed  point, 
on  which  the  orthodox  view,  so  called,  may  be  said  to 
hang,  unless  it  be  this,  viz.,  that  Christ  suffers  evil  as  evil, 
or  in  direct  and  simple  substitution  for  evil  that  was  to 
be  suffered  by  us ;  so  that  God  accepts  one  evil  in  place 
of  the  other,  and  being  satisfied  in  this  manner,  is  able  to 
justify  or  pardon. 

As  to  the  measure  of  this  evil,  there  are  different 
opinions.  Calvin  maintained  the  truly  horrible  doctrine 
that  Christ  descended  into  hell,  when  crucified,  and 
suffered  the  pains  of  the  damned  for  three  days.  A  very 
great  number  of  the  Christian  teachers,  even  at  this  day, 
maintain  that  Christ  suffered  exactly  as  much  pain  as  all 
the  redeemed  would  have  suffered  under  the  penalties  of 
eternal  justice.  But  this  penal  view  of  Christ’s  death  has 
been  gradually  giving  way,  till  now,  under  its  most  modern, 
most  mitigated  and  least  objectionable  form,  he  is  only 
S3L.  i  to  have  suffered  under  a  law  of  expression. 

Thus,  God  would  have  expressed  a  certain  abhorrence 
of  sin,  by  the  punishment  of  the  world.  Christ  now 
suffers  only  as  much  pain  as  will  express  the  same  amount 
of  abhorrence.  And  considering  the  dignity  of  the  suf¬ 
ferer,  and  his  relations  to  the  Father,  there  was  no  need 
of  suffering  the  same,  or  even  any  proximate  amount  of 


STATED  AND  DISCUSSEj, 


19  S 


pain,  to  make  an  expression  of  abhorrence  to  sin,  that  is, 
of  justice,  equal  to  that  produced  by  the  literal  punish¬ 
ment  of  the  race.  Still,  it  will  be  seen  to  be  a  part  ot 
this  more  mitigated  view,  that  Christ  suffers  evil  as  evil, 
which  evil  suffered  is  accepted  as  a  compensative 
expression  of  God’s  indignation  against  sin.  Accord¬ 
ingly,  in  the  agony  of  Gethsemane,  and  when  the  Saviour 
exclaims,  in  his  passion,  “  My  God !  my  God !  why 
hast  thou  forsaken  me !”  it  will  be  taken  for  literal  truth, 
that  the  frown  of  God,  or  Divine  Justice,  rested  on  his 
soul. 

It  will  probably  be  right,  then,  to  distribute  the  views 
of  those  who  are  accepted,  now,  as  orthodox  teachers, 
into  two  classes ;  one  who  consider  the  death  of  Christ 
as  availing,  by  force  of  what  it  is ;  the  other,  by  force  of 
what  it  expresses ;  the  former  holding  it  as  a  literal  sub¬ 
stitution  of  evil  endured,  for  evil  that  was  to  be  endured  ; 
the  latter  holding  it  as  an  expression  of  abhorrence  to 
sin,  made  through  the  suffering  of  one,  in  place  of  the 
same  expression  that  was  to  be  made,  by  the  suffering  of 
many. 


As  regards  the  former  class  of  representations,  we 
may  say,  comprehensively,  that  they  are  capable,  one 
and  all,  of  no  light  in  which  they  do  not  even  offend 
some  right  moral  sentiment  of  our  being.  Indeed,  they 
raise  up  moral  objections  with  such  marvellous  fecun¬ 
dity,  that  we  can  hardly  state  them  as  fast  as  they  occur 
to  us. 

Thus,  if  evil  remitted  must  be  repaid  by  an  equiva-  j 
lent,  what  real  economy  is  there  in  the  transaction  ?  j 


190 


TIIE  PROTESTANT  VIEWS 


k  What  is  effected,  save  the  transfer  of  penal  evil  from  the 
'  guilty  to  the  innocent  ? 

And  if  the  great  Redeemer,  in  the  excess  of  his  good¬ 
ness,  consents,  freely  offers  himself  to  the  Father,  or  to 
God,  to  receive  the  penal  woes,  or  some  sufficient  part  of 
the  penal  woes  of  the  world,  in  his  own  person,  what 
does  it  signify,  when  that  offer  is  accepted,  but  that  God 
will  have  his  modicum  of  suffering  somehow — if  he  lets 
the  guilty  go,  will  yet  satisfy  himself  out  of  the  innocent  ? 
In  which  the  divine  government,  instead  of  clearing 
itself,  assumes  the  double  ignominy,  first  of  letting  the 
guilty  go,  and  secondly,  of  accepting  the  sufferings  of 
innocence  !  In  which,  Calvin,  seeing  no  difficulty,  is  still 
able  to  say,  when  arguing  for  Christ’s  three  days  in  hell, 
— “  it  was  requisite  that  he  should  feel  the  severity  of  the 
divine  vengeance,  in  order  to  appease  the  wrath  of  God, 
and  satisfy  his  justice.’’  I  confess  my  inability  to  read 
this  kind  of  language  without  a  sensation  of  horror;  for  it  is 
not  the  half-poetic,  popular  language  of  scripture,  but  the 
cool,  speculative  language  of  theory,  as  concerned  with 
the  reason  of  God’s  penal  distributions. 

And  yet  this  objection  is  aggravated,  if  possible,  by 
another  representation,  that  Christ  did  not  suffer  willingly, 
oi  by  consent,  save  in  the  sense  that  he  obeyed  the  com¬ 
mand  by  which  it  was  laid  upon  him  to  suffer  !  Thus  a 
iistinguished  American  writer,  in  his  treatise  on  this 
subject,  written  only  thirty  years  ago,  says, — “  The 
Father  must  command  him  tc  die,  or  the  stroke  would 
not  be  from  His  own  hand,” — carrying  still  the  analogy 
of  punishment,  so  far  as  to  suppose,  that,  like  all  penal 


STATED  AND  DISCUSSED. 


197 


inflictions,  Christ  must  die  under  “authority”  of  God,  in 
order  that  his  death  should  have  any  theoiogic  value. 
It  is  quite  useless  to  ask,  in  this  connection,  what 
becomes  of  the  deity  of  the  Son,  when  he  is  thus  under 
the  authority  of  the  Father  ;  for  he  is  not  merely  under  it 
as  being  in  the  flesh,  as  the  scriptures  speak,  but  it  is 
“  authority”  that  sends  him  into  the  flesh.  To  profess  ? 
the  real  and  proper  deity  of  Christ,  in  such  a  connection,  \ 
is  only  to  use  words  as  instruments  of  self-deception — 
his  deity,  after  all,  is  not  believed,  and  cannot  be  where 
such  a  doctrine  is  held. 

Then,  again,  according  to  the  same  view,  Christ  is 
also  God  and  ruler  of  the  world,  in  his  own  person. 
Would  any  king,  then,  be  in  a  fair  way  to  maintain  jus¬ 
tice  in  his  kingdom,  if  he  took  all  the  penalties  of  trans¬ 
gression  on  himself?  Or  if  it  be  said  that  the  human 
nature  only  of  Jesus  suffered,  then  we  have  the  brief 
pangs  of  one  human  person  accepted,  in  strict  justice,  as 
the  equivalent  of  all  the  penalties  of  all  human  transgres¬ 
sion,  since  the  world  began  ! 

Again,  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  future  punish 
ment  or  retribution,  in  this  view,  without  involving  a 
charge  of  injustice.  For  if  justice  be  exactly  vindicated, 
and  the  terms  of  the  law  exactly  satisfied,  to  punish  after 
that  is  plainly  to  exact  double  justice — which  is  injustice. 

Again,  it  is  a  fatal  objection  to  this  view,  that  it  sets 
every  transgressor  right  before  the  law,  when,  as  yet, 
there  is  nothing  right  in  his  character  ;  producing,  if  we 
view  it  constructively,  and  not  historically,  (for  historic 
and  speculative  results  do  not  always  agree,)  the  worst 
conceivable  form  df  licentiousness.  For,  if  the  terms  ol 
17* 


198 


THE  PROTESTANT  VIEWS 


the  law  are  satisfied,  the  transgressor  has  it  for  his  right  to 
go  free,  whether  he  forsake  his  transgressions  or  not.  As 
far  as  any  mere  claims  of  law  or  justice  are  concerned, 
he  may  challenge  impunity  for  all  the  wrongs  he  has 
committed,  shall  commit,  or  can  commit,  while  his  breath 
remains  ! 

In  the  second  and  more  mitigated  class  of  orthodox 
opinions,  a  very  important  and  really  true  position  is,  at 
last,  reached ;  viz., — that  the  value  of  Christ’s  life  and 
death  is  measured  by  what  is  therein  expressed.  Only  it 
is  needed,  now,  to  go  a  step  farther,  investigating  what 
he  expresses,  how  or  under  what  esthetic  conditions  the 
expression  is  made,  and  the  object  for  which  it  is  made 
— whether  it  be  to  express  God’s  character  and  bring  the 
^Eternal  Life  into  visible  evidence  and  social  relation  ; 
[  whether  to  sanctify  and  set  in  honor,  before  mankind,  the 
Tbroken  law  of  God  ;  whether  to  bring  God  as  a  renovat¬ 
ing  power  into  union  with  our  human  nature  ;  whether, 
possibly,  it  be  not  rather  to  accomplish  all  these  ends, 
and  that,  too,  without  any  imposition  or  endurance  of 
evil  in  the  penal  form  of  evil,  any  suffering  or  pain  which  is 
undertaken  for  effect,  as  being  a  direct  exhibition  of  God’s 
justice,  or  judicial  abhorrence  to  sin. 

The  objections  I  have  to  this  more  mitigated  theory, 
are  these  : — 

First,  it  assumes  that,  as  punishment  expresses  the  abhor¬ 
rence  of  God  to  sin,  or  what  is  the  same,  his  justice,  he 
can  sustain  his  law  and  lay  a  ground  of  forgiveness  with¬ 
out  punishment,  only  by  some  equivalent  expression  of  ab 


STATED  AND  DISCUSSED. 


199 


horrence — an  assumption  that  is  groundless  and  without 
consideration,  as  I  may  cause  to  appear  in  another  place. 

Secondly,  this  latter  seems  to  accord  with  the  former 
view  in  supposing  that  Christ  suffers  evil  as  evil,  or 
as  a  penal  visitation  of  God’s  justice,  only  doing  it  in 
a  less  painful  degree  ;  that  is,  suffering  so  much  of  evil  as 
will  suffice,  considering  the  dignity  of  his  person,  to 
express  the  same  amount  of  abhorrence  to  sin,  that  would 
be  expressed  by  the  eternal  punishment  of  all  mankind.' 
I  confess  my  inability  to  see  how  an  innocent  being 
could  ever  be  set,  even  for  one  moment,  in  an  attitude  ol 
displeasure  under  God.  If  He  could  lay  His  frown,  for 
one  moment,  on  the  soul  of  innocence  and  virtue,  He 
must  be  no  such  being  as  I  have  loved  and  worshipped. 
Much  less  can  I  imagine  that  He  should  lay  it  on  the 
head  of  one,  whose  nature  is  itself  co-equal  Deity.  Does 
any  one  say  that  He  will  do  it  for  public  governmental 
reasons  ?  No  governmental  reasons,  I  answer,  can 
justify  even  the  admission  of  innocence  into  a  participa¬ 
tion  of  frowns  and  penal  distributions.  If  consenting 
innocence  says,  “  let  the  blow  fall  on  me,”  precisely 
there  is  it  for  a  government  to  prove  its  justice,  even  to 
the  point  of  sublimity  ;  to  reveal  the  essential,  eternal, 
unmitigable  distinction  it  holds  between  innocence  and 
sin,  by  declaring  that  as  under  law  and  its  distributions, 
it  is  even  impossible  to  suffer  any  commutation,  any  the 
least  confusion  of  places. 

All  the  analogies  invented  or  brought  from  actual  his¬ 
tory,  to  clear  this  point,  are  manifestly  worthless.  If 
Zaleucus,  for  example,  instead  of  enforcing  the  statute 
against  bis  son,  which  required  the  destruction  of  both 


200 


THE  PROTESTANT  VIEWS 


his  eyes,  thinks  to  satisfy  the  law  by  putting  cut  one  of 
his  own  eyes  and  one  of  his  son’s,  he  only  practices  a 
very  unintelligent  fraud  upon  the  law,  under  pretext  of  a 
conscientiously  literal  enforcement  of  it.  The  statute 
did  not  require  the  loss  of  two  eyes;  if  it  had,  the  two 
eyes  of  a  dog  would  have  sufficed  ;  but  it  required  the 
two  eyes  of  the  criminal — that  he,  as  a  wrong  doer,  shou  id 
be  put  into  darkness.  If  the  father  had  consented  to 
have  both  his  own  eyes  put  out,  instead  of  his  son’s,  it 
might  have  been  very  kind  of  him,  but  to  speak  of  it  as 
public  justice,  or  as  any  proper  vindication  of  law,  would 
be  impossible.  The  real  truth  signified  would  be,  that 
Zaleucus  loved  public  justice  too  little,  in  comparison 
with  his  exceeding  fondness  for  his  son,  to  let  the  law 
have  its  course ;  and  yet,  as  if  the  law  stood  upon  getting 
two  eyes,  apart  from  all  justice,  too  many  scruples  to 
release  the  sin,  without  losing  the  two  eyes  of  his  body, 
as  before  he  had  lost  the  eyes  of  his  reason. 

'  According  to  the  supposition,  the  problem  here  is  to 
produce  an  expression  of  abhorrence  to  sin,  through  the 
sufferings  of  Christ,  in  place  of  another,  through  the 
/sufferings  of  the  guilty.  Now  the  truth  of  the  latter 
expression  consists  in  the  fact  that  there  is  an  abhorrence 
in  God  to  be  expressed.  But  there  is  no  such  abhorrence 
in  God  towards  Christ,  and  therefore,  if  the  external 
expression  of  Christ’s  sufferings  has  no  correspondent 
feeling  to  be  expressed,  where  lies  the  truth  of  the  expres¬ 
sion  ?  And  if  the  frown  of  God  lies  upon  his  soul,  as  we 
often  hear,  in  the  garden  and  on  the  cross,  how  can  the 
frown  of  God,  falling  on  the  soul  of  innocence,  express 
any  truth  or  an}  feeling  of  justice  ? 


STATED  AND  DISCUSSED. 


201 


Thirdly,  if  Christ  be  himself,  in  the  highest  and  truest 
sense,  the  Eternal  Life,  God  manifested  in  the  flesh, 
then  every  expression  of  justice  or  abhorrence  to  sin, 
which  is  made  by  his  death  as  a  mere  endurance  of  evil,  is 
involved  in  yet  greater  obscurity  and  confusion.  He 
says,  himself,  that  all  power  is  given  unto  him  in  heaven 
and  on  earth.  He  is,  in  fact,  the  embodiment,  as  he  is 
the  representation  of  God  and  divine  government ;  he 
must  be  taken,  in  all  that  he  does,  as  doing  something 
which  is  properly  referable  to  God.  No  theory  of  three 
metaphysical  natures,  called  persons,  in  God,  can  at  all 
vary  this  truth.  The  transactions  of  Christ  must  still  be 
taken  as  transactions  of  God.  The  frown,  then,  if  it  be 
said  to  be  of  God,  is  quite  as  truly  on  God.  The  expres¬ 
sion  of  justice  or  abhorrence  is  made  by  sufferings 
that  are  endured,  not  out  of  the  circle  of  divine  govern¬ 
ment,  but  in  it.  And  thus  we  have  a  government  real¬ 
izing  its  penal  distributions  or  their  equivalents,  that  is, 
its  justice,  its  significations  of  abhorrence,  wholly  within 
itself  and  apart  from  all  terms  of  relation,  save  as  the 
subjects,  so  called,  are  to  be  spectators !  Whatever 
speculations  we  may  hold,  in  regard  to  modes  of  expres¬ 
sion,  can  we  hold  such  a  view  of  divine  government 
without  some  uncomfortable  suspicion  of  mistake  in  it  ? 

Once  more,  it  is  to  be  noticed,  as  a  law  of  expression, 
that  when  evil  is  endured  simply  and  only  for  what  it 
expresses,  it  expresses  nothing.  If  a  man  wades  out  upon 
some  mountain,  in  the  snows  of  a  wintry  night,  to  carry 
food  to  a  perishing  family,  then  what  he  encounters  of 
risk  and  suffering,  being  incidentally  encountered,  is  an 
expression  of  charity.  But  if  he  calls  upon  us  to  observe 


202 


THE  PROTEST  AN  T  VIEWS 


his  charity  expressed  in  what  he  will  suffer,  and,  waiting 
for  a  stormy  night,  goes  forth  on  the  same  expedition  tc 
the  mountain,  he  expresses  nothing  but  ostentation.  So 
if  Christ  comes  into  the  world  to  teach,  to  cheer,  to  heal, 
to  pour  his  sympathies  into  the  bosom  of  all  human  sor¬ 
row,  to  assert  the  integrity  of  truth,  and  rebuke  the  wick¬ 
edness  of  sin,  in  a  word,  to  manifest  the  Eternal  Life  and 
bring  it  into  a  quickening  union  with  the  souls  of  our 
race,  then  to  suffer  incidentally,  to  die  an  ignominious 
and  cruel  death  rather  than  depart  from  his  heavenly 
errand,  is  to  make  an  expression  of  the  Heart  of  God, 
which  every  human  soul  must  feel.  And  this  expression 
may  avail  to  sanctify  the  law  before  us,  even  though 
there  be  no  abhorrence  expressed  in  his  sufferings,  But, 
if  Christ  comes  into  the  world  invoking,  as  it  were,  the 
frown  of  God,  and  undertaking  to  suffer  evil  from  God, 
that  he  may  express  God’s  justice,  or  His  abhorrence  of 
sin,  then  he  expresses  nothing.  The  very  laws  of  expres¬ 
sion,  if  I  understand  them  rightly,  require  that  suffering 
should  be  endured,  not  as  purposed,  or  as  evil  taken  up 
for  the  expression  of  it,  but  that  the  evil  be  a  necessary 
incident  encountered  on  the  way  to  some  end  separate  from 
expression, — some  truth,  benefaction,  or  work  of  love. 

Having  stated  frankly  these  objections  to  the  common 
orthodox  views  of  atonement,  whether  resting  the  value 
of  Christ’s  death  in  what  it  is,  or  in  what  it  expresses ,  it 
may  be  expected  that  I  should  renounce  all  sympathy 
and  connection  with  them.  This  I  \  ave  never  been  able 
to  do.  For  if  they  are  unsatisfactory,  if  the  older  and 
more  venerable  doctrine  is  repugnant,  when  speculative!)' 


STATED  AND  DISCUSSED. 


203 


regarded,  to  the  most  sacred  instincts  or  sentiments  of 
our  moral  nature,  and  dissolves  itself  at  the  first  approach 
of  rational  inquiry,  is  it  nothing  remarkable,  is  it  not 
even  more  remarkable,  that  it  should  have  supported  the 
spirit  of  so  many  believers  and  martyrs,  in  so  many  trials 
and  deaths,  continued  through  so  many  centuries  ?  Re¬ 
futed  again  and  again,  cast  away,  trampled  upon  by 
irreverent  mockeries,  it  has  never  yet  been  able  to  die — 
wherefore,  unless  there  be  some  power  of  divine  life  in 
it  ?  So  I  have  always  believed,  and  I  hope  to  show  you, 
before  I  have  done,  where  it  is,  or  under  what  form  it  is 
hid  ;  for  I  shall  carry  you  into  a  region,  separate  from  all 
speculation,  or  theologizing,  and  there,  what  I  now  dis¬ 
miss,  I  shall  virtually  reclaim  and  restore,  in  a  shape  that 
provokes  none  of  these  objections.  All  that  is  real  and 
essentia]  to  the  power  of  this  orthodox  doctrine  of  atone¬ 
ment,  however  held,  I  hope  to  set  forth  still,  as  the 
Divine  Form  of  Christianity,  assigning  it  a  place  where 
it  may  still  reveal  its  efficacy,  standing  ever  as  an  Altar 
of  penitence  and  peace,  a  Pillar  of  confidence  to  believ¬ 
ing  souls. 

We  come  now  to  the  double  view  of  the  atonement, 
or  work  of  Christ,  which  it  was  proposed  to  establish 
And, 

I.  The  subjective,  that  which  represents  Christ  as  a 
manifestation  of  the  Life,  thus  a  power  whose  end  it  is  to 
quicken,  or  regenerate  the  human  character. 

Here,  as  it  has  been  already  intimated,  the  value  ol 
Christ’s  mission  is  measured  by  what  is  expressed.  And 
if  so,  then  it  follows,  of  course,  that  no  dogmatic  state 


204 


SUBJECTIVE  DOCTRINE. 


merit  can  adequately  represent  his  work  ;  for  the  mattei 
of  it  does  not  lie  in  formulas  of  reason,  and  cannot  be 
comprehended  in  them.  It  is  more  a  poem  than  a  trea¬ 
tise.  It  classes  as  a  work  of  Art  more  than  as  a  work  ol 
Science.  It  addresses  the  understanding,  in  great  part, 
through  the  feeling  or  sensibility.  An  these  it  has  its  recep¬ 
tivities,  by  these  it  is  perceived,  or  perceivable.  Moving, 
in  and  through  these,  as  a  revelation  of  sympathy,  love, 
life,  it  proposes  to  connect  us  with  the  Life  of  God. 
And  when  through  these,  believingly  opened  as  inlets,  it 
is  received,  then  is  the  union  it  seeks  consummated 
Were  it  not  for  the  air  it  might  give  to  my  representa¬ 
tions,  in  the  view  of  many,  I  should  like,  in  common  with 
Paul,  (Phil.  i.  9,  10.)  to  use  the  word  esthetic ,  and  repre¬ 
sent  Christianity  as  a  power  moving  upon  man,  through 
this  department  of  his  nature,  both  to  regenerate  his 
degraded  perception  of  excellence,  and  also  to  communi¬ 
cate,  in  that  way,  the  fullness  and  beauty  of  God. 

Hence,  it  would  not  be  as  wild  a  breach  of  philosophy 
itself,  to  undertake  a  dogmatic  statement  of  the  contents 
of  a  tragedy,  as  to  attempt  giving  in  the  same  manner 
the  equivalents  of  the  life  and  death  of  Jesus  Christ. 
The  only  real  equivalent  we  can  give  is  the  represent¬ 
ation  of  the  life  itself.  It  is  not  absurd,  however,  to  say 
something  about  the  subject,  if  only  we  do  not  assume 
the  adequacy  of  what  we  say — we  could  offer  some  theo¬ 
retical  views  of  a  tragedy,  but  our  theoretic  matter  would 
not  be  the  tragedy.  No  more  can  we  set  forth,  as  a 
real  and  proper  equivalent,  any  theoretic  matter  of 
ours  concerning  the  life  and  death  of  Jesus  Christ,  which 
is  the  highest  and  most  moving  tragedy  ever  acted  in  this 


CHRIST  A  PERFECT  CHARACTER. 


205 


mortal  sphere ;  a  tragedy  distinguished  in  the  fact  that 
God  is  the  Chief  Character,  and  the  divine  feeling, 
moved  in  tragic  earnest — Goodness  Infinite  manifested 
through  Sorrow — the  passion  represented. 

Beginning,  then,  with  the  lowest  view  our  subject  per¬ 
mits,  it  is  obvious  that  the  life  of  Christ,  considered  only 
as  a  perfect  being  or  character,  is  an  embodiment  in 
human  history,  of  a  spirit  and  of  ideas,  which  are  suffi¬ 
cient  of  themselves  to  change  the  destinies  of  the  race, 
and  even  their  capabilities  of  good.  Is  it  too  much  for 
me  to  assume  that  Christ  was  such  a  character  ?  Is  it 
intimated  that  a  very  close,  microscopic  inspection  has 
revealed,  as  some  imagine,  two  or  three  flaws  in  his  life  ? 
Be  it  so ;  I  want  no  other  evidence  that  he  was  a  perfect 
and  sinless  being.  Sin  is  never  revealed  microscopically, 
but,  wherever  it  is,  it  sets  its  mark,  as  we  set  our  flag 
on  a  new-discovered  island.  Show  me,  therefore,  a  char¬ 
acter  that  is  flawed  only  microscopically,  and  I  will  charge 
the  flaws  to  the  microscope  or  even  to  the  solar  beam, 
rather  than  to  it.  Christ,  then,  I  assume,  was  a  sinlessly 
perfect  being.  And  how  great  an  event,  to  have  had  one 
such  perfect  life  or  biography  lived  and  witnessed  in  the 
world,  and  so  deposited  in  the  bosom  of  our  human  his¬ 
tory.  Here  we  have  among  us,  call  him  either  human 
only,  or  divine,  what  the  most  splendid  gifts  of  human 
genius  had  labored  in  vain  to  sketch — a  perfect  file. 
What  feelings,  principles,  beauties,  ideas  or  regulative 
idea.s,  are  thus  imported  into  the  world’s  bosom  !  Only 
to  have  seen  one  perfect  life,  to  have  heard  the  words 

and  received  the  pure  conceptions  of  one  s  nless  spirit,  to 

18 


20  6  CHRIST  A  PERFECT  CHARACTER. 

have  felt  the  working  of  his  charities,  and  witnessed  the 
offering  of  his  sinless  obedience,  would  have  been  to 
receive  the  seeds  of  a  moral  revolution  that  must  ulti¬ 
mately  affect  the  whole  race.  This  was  true  even  of  a 
Socrates.  Our  world  is  not  the  same  world  that  it  was 
before  he  lived  in  it.  Much  less  the  same,  since  the  sin¬ 
less  Jesus  lived  and  suffered  in  it.  Such  a  character  has, 
of  necessity,  an  organific  power.  It  enters  into  human 
thought  and  knowledge  as  a  vital  force  ;  and,  since  it  is 
perfect,  a  vital  force  that  cannot  die,  or  cease  to  work. 
It  must,  of  necessity,  organize  a  kingdom  of  life,  and 
reign.  The  ideas  it  has  revealed,  and  the  spirit  it  has 
breathed  into  the  air,  are  quick  and  powerful,  and  must 
live  till  the  world  itself  is  no  more.  The  same  sun  may 
shine  above,  the  same  laws  of  nature  may  reign  about  us, 
but  the  grand  society  of  man  embodies  new  elemental 
forces,  and  the  capacity,  at  some  time  or  other,  of  another 
and  a  gloriously  renovated  state.  The  entering  of  one 
such  perfect  life  into  the  world’s  history  changes,  in  fact, 
the  consciousness  of  the  race  ;  just  as  the  most  accom¬ 
plished,  perhaps,  of  all  modern  theologians  assumes,  when 
he  undertakes  to  verify  the  truths  of  the  gospel  out  of  the 
contents  of  the  religious  consciousness  of  the  Christian 
nations,  as  compared  with  the  ancient  consciousness,  or 
that  of  heathen  nations. 

Again,  the  appearing  of  Jesus,  the  Messiah,  has  a  mucfi 
higher  significance  and  power  when  taken  as  the  mani¬ 
festation  of  the  Life — the  incarnate  Word,  God  expressed 
in  and  through  the  human. 

I  am  obliged  here,  as  in  the  general  treatment  of  my 


CHRIST  AS  THE  WORD  OF  GOD.  20“ 

subject,  to  assume  a  view  of  Christ’s  person,  which  you 
may  not  all  be  ready  to  admit.  Any  one,  however,  may 
go  with  me,  who  earnestly  believes  that  in  Christ  the 
Life  was  manifested.  I  may  use  language  that  implies  a 
different  view  of  Christ’s  person,  but  as  far  as  the  doctrine 
of  this  particular  subject  is  concerned,  whoever  can  look 
upon  Christ  as  a  proper  and  true  manifestation  of  God,  a 
peculiar  being  distinguished  from  ordinary  men,  by  the 
fact  that  a  properly  divine  import  is  communicated  by  his 
life,  (which,  of  course,  makes  the  mere  human  import  a 
matter  of  inferior  consequence,)  may  well  enough  admit 
whatever  I  shall  advance,  and  harmonize  it,  for  himself, 
with  his  own  particular  view. 

Regarding  the  world,  then,  even  as  an  upright  and 
sinless  world,  how  great  an  event  is  it  that  the  Eternal 
is  incarnated  in  their  history,  that  the  King  is  among 
them,  expressing,  by  the  mysterious  identification  of  his 
nature  with  theirs,  a  mystery  yet  more  august — the  pos¬ 
sible  union  of  their  nature  with  His  !  How  memorable 
his  words,  teachings,  works,  and  condescensions !  And 
when  he  withdraws  into  the  deep  recesses  of  spirit 
again,  what  name  will  be  dear  to  them  as  the  name  of 
their  Christ !  His  appearing  is  a  new  epoch  in  their  his¬ 
tory.  He  will  live  in  their  hearts,  life  within  life.  A 
divine  light  from  the  person  of  their  Emanuel  will  stream 
through  their  history.  Their  words  will  be  sanctified  b) 
his  uses.  Their  works  will  be  animated  by  his  spirit. 
A  divine  vigor  from  the  Life  manifested  among  them 
will  penetrate  their  feeling,  elevating  their  ideas  and  pur. 
poses,  and  even  their  capacity  of  good  itself 


208 


CHRIST  DISSOLVES 


But  if  we  are  to  understand  the  full  import  of  Christ’s 
mission,  we  must  go  farther.  He  is  not  merely  a  perfect 
life  embodied  in  history.  He  is  not  merely  the  Eternal 
Life  manifested  in  a  good  and  upright  history.  We  must 
regard  him  as  the  Life  manifested  in  an  evil  history,  or 
that  of  an  alienated  and  averted  race.  He  finds  us  un¬ 
der  sin,  captives  imprisoned  by  evil,  and  he  comes  to  be 
our  liberator.  Accordingly,  we  are  now  to  see  in  what 
manner  he  addresses  himself  to  the  moral  wants  and  dis¬ 
abilities  of  a  state  of  sin. 

And  here,  glancing  first  of  all  at  human  society,  we 
discover  the  appalling  fact  that  sin,  once  existing,  becomes, 
and  even  must  become,  a  corporate  authority — a  law  or 
Ruling  Power,  in  the  world,  opposite  to  God.  Entering 
into  the  fashions,  opinions,  manners,  ends,  passions  of  the 
race,  it  molds  their  institutions,  legislates  over  their  con¬ 
duct,  and  even  constructs  a  morality  by  standards  of  its 
own.  And  thus,  acting  through  the  mass,  it  becomes  a 
law  to  the  individual,  crowning  Lust  and  Mammon  as 
gods,  harnessing  nations  to  the  chariot  of  war,  building 
thrones  of  oppression,  kindling  fires  of  persecution, 
poisoning  the  fountains  of  literature,  adorning  falsehood 
with  the  splendors  of  genius,  sanctifying  wrong  under 
the  plausible  names  of  honor  and  fashion.  Thus,  or  by 
all  these  methods,  sin  becomes  a  kind  of  malign  posses¬ 
sion  in  the  race,  a  prince  of  the  power  of  the  air, 
reigning  unto  death.  To  break  the  organic  force 
social  evil,  thus  dominant  over  the  race,  Christ  enters  the 
world,  bringing  into  human  history  and  incorporating  in 
it  as  such,  that  which  is  Divine.  The  Life  manifested 
in  him  becomes  a  historic  power  and  presence  in  the 


THE  LAW  OF  SOCIAL  EVIL. 


2or 


world's  bosom,  organizing  there  a  new  society  or  king¬ 
dom,  called  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  or  sometimes  the 
chuich.  For  the  church  is  not  a  body  of  men  holding 
certain  dogmas,  or  maintaining,  as  men,  certain  theologic 
wars  for  God ;  but  it  is  the  Society  of  the  Life,  the 
Embodied  Word.  Thus  it  is  expressly  declared  to  be 
the  body  of  Christ,  the  fullness  of  him  that  filleth  all  in 
all.  Hence  our  blessed  Lord,  just  before  his  passion, 
considering  that  now  the  organic  force  of  evil  was  to  be 
broken,  said,  now  is  the  judgment  of  this  world,  now  is 
the  prince  of  this  world  cast  out.  The  princedom  of 
evil  is  dissolved — the  eternal  Life,  manifested  in  the  *. 
world,  organizes  a  new  society  of  life,  breaks  the  spell  \ 

forever  of  social  evil,  and  begins  a  reign  of  truth  and _ _ 

love  that  shall  finally  renew  the  world. 

While  the  social  authority  of  evil  is  thus  broken,  there 
is  also  a  movement  on  the  individual,  to  clear  the  disa¬ 
bilities  which  sin  has  wrought  in  his  nature,  and  with¬ 
draw  him  from  the  internal  bondage  of  evil. 

God  is  the  light  of  our  spiritual  nature.  Sin  with¬ 
draws  itself  from  God.  Hence  the  condition  of  sin  is  a 
condition  of  blindness  and  spiritual  darkness.  The  moral 
conceptions  are  dulled.  The  man  lives  in  his  senses  and 
bee  omes  a  creature  of  se  ise.  His  religious  ideas,  sepa- 
rated  fiom  faith  or  by  unbelief  denied,  still  maintain  their 
activity  as  vagaries,  after  they  have  lost  their  verity ; 
and,  haunted  by  these  vagaries,  he  finds  no  rest  till  the 
God  whose  conception  he  has  lost,  is  replaced  by  such  as 
he  can  invent  for  himself.  Hence  the  infallible  con¬ 
nection  of  sin  and  idolatry.  The  glory  of  the  incorrup- 
18* 


210 


CHRIST  BRINGS  LIGHT, 


tible  God  is  necessarily  lost.  Actuated  still  by  a  dim 
religious  instinct,  whose  object  and  throne  of  worship  are 
no  longer  seen,  he  fashions  gods  through  the  smoke  of  his 
own  lusts — cruel  and  deceitful  monsters,  of  course,  for 
a  God  of  love  cannot  be  conceived  through  clouds  of 
animosity  and  tempests  of  wrath. 

What,  now,  shall  cure  this  blinded  condition  of  the 
race  ?  How  needful  that  God  should  meet  them  in  the 

-"ZJ 

element  where  their  soul  lives,  that  is,  in  their  senses.  It 

a 

is  not  so  much  an  absolute  religion — not  doctrines  or 
precepts  or  arguments  that  they  want,  but  a  production 
of  the  divine  in  the  human,  a  living  Presence,  a  manifest¬ 
ation  of  the  Life.  Therefore  the  Word  is  made  flesh 
and  dwells  with  men.  The  true  light  now  shineth. 
God,  who  commanded  the  light  to  shine  out  of  darkness, 
hath  shined  in  our  hearts,  to  give  the  light  of  the  knowl¬ 
edge  of  the  glory  of  God  in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ. 
God  is  here,  in  act,  word,  power,  filling  the  molds  of  his¬ 
tory,  and  visiting  the  blinded  world  in  the  palpable  forms 
of  life  itself.  The  understanding  that  was  darkened, 
being  alienated  from  the  life  of  God,  beholds  once  more 
a  light  in  the  manifested  life.  Even  the  atheist  feels  a 
Presence  here,  whose  simple  and  pure  shining,  as  it  pro¬ 
vokes  no  argument,  suffers  no  answer.  While  the  under¬ 
standing  is  blockaded  by  doubt,  a  God  streams  into  the 
feeling,  and  proves  His  reality  to  the  heart.  The  tor¬ 
pors  of  logic  are  melted  away  by  the  warmth  of  the 
life,  and  he  knows  God  as  love,  before  he  finds  him  as 
the  absolute  of  the  reason.  Thus  it  has  been  also  with 
idolatry.  No  speculations  or  abstractions  about  God 
have  ever  been  able  to  correct  or  overthrow  idolatry. 


OPENS  ETERNITY. 


211 


But  how  many  idolatrous  nations  have  yielded  to  the 
wondrous  power  that  has  invaded  their  feeling  from  the 
life  and  cross  of  Christ!  The  Word  made  flesh  is  the 
true  light  to  them.  The  historic  Christ  fills  them  with 
God  as  a  higher  sense.  The  divinity,  in  him,  floods  tneir 
feeling,  and  they  receive  God  as  a  Power,  before  they 
conceive  his  philosophic  Idea. 

The  manifestation  of  the  Life  also  revives  in  man, 
as  a  sinner,  the  consciousness  of  himself.  It  is  one  of 
the  paradoxes  realized  by  sin,  that,  while  it  makes  a  man 
every  thing  to  himself,  it  makes  him  also  nothing.  It 
smothers  the  spark  of  conscious  immortality.  This  world 
is  practically  all  to  him.  The  grave  is  dark,  and  he  has 
no  faith  to  throw  a  light  across  on  spiritual  realities  be¬ 
yond  it.  But  when  he  that  was  in  the  form  of  God 
comes  into  the  human  state,  when  we  see  one  here  who 
visibly  is  not  of  us,  when  he  opens  here  a  heart  of  love, 
and  floods  the  world  with  rivers  of  divine  feeling,  when 
we  trace  him  from  the  manger  over  which  the  hymns  of 
heaven’s  joy  are  ringing,  to  the  cross  where  his  purpose 
to  save  embraces  even  death  for  man ;  and  then,  when 
we  see  that  death  cannot  hold  him,  that  he  bursts  into 
life  aorain  as  a  victor  over  death — following  such  a  his 

O  O 

tory  transacted,  in  our  view,  we  begin  also  to  conceive 
the  tremendous  import  of  our  own,  the  equally  tre¬ 
mendous  import  also  of  our  sin.  If  God,  to  renew  the 
soul  moves  a  plan  like  this,  what  is  it  to  be  a  soul,  what 
to  desecrate  and  destroy  a  soul  ?  The  conscious  gran¬ 
deur  of  his  eternity  returns  upon  the  transgressor 


212 


ASSISTS  OUR  STRUGGLES. 


and  he  trembles  in  awe  of  himself — himself  the  power 
of  an  endless  life. 


Suppose,  now,  to  advance  another  stage,  that  a  man 
under  sin  becomes  reflective,  conscious  of  himself  and  of 
evil,  sighing  with  discontent  and  bitterness,  because  of  his 
own  spiritual  disorders.  Conceive  him  thus  as  under¬ 
taking  a  restoration  of  his  own  nature  to  goodness,  and 
the  pure  ideal  of  his  conscience.  What  can  he  do 
i^without  some  objective  power  to  engage  his  affections, 
and  be  a  higher  nature,  present,  by  which  to  elevate  and 
assimilate  his  own  ?  Sin  has  removed  him  from  God  ; 
vy withdrawing  into  himself,  his  soul  has  become  objectless, 
and  good  affections  cannot  live,  or  be  made  to  live, 
where  there  is  no  living  object  left  to  warm  and  support 
them.  He  can  rise,  therefore,  by  no  help  from  his 
affections,  or  through  them.  Accordingly,  if  he  attempts 
to  restore  himself  to  that  ideal  beauty  and  purity  he  has 
lost,  he  is  obliged  to  do  it  wholly  by  his  will ;  possibly 
against  the  depressing  bondage  of  his  affections,  now 
sunk  in  torpor  and  deadness,  or  soured  by  a  protracted, 
malign  activity.  Having  all  this  to  do  by  his  will,  he 
finds,  alas !  that  if  to  will  is  present,  how  to  perform  is 
not.  He  seems,  to  himself,  like  a  man  who  is  endeavoring 
to  lift  himself  by  pulling  at  his  feet.  Hence,  or  to  re^ 
move  this  disability,  God  needs  to  be  manifested  as 
I^ovev  The  Divine  Object  rejected  by  sin  and  practically 
annihilated  as  a  spiritual  conception,  needs  to  be  im¬ 
ported  into  sense.  Then,  when  God  appears  in  His 
beauty,  loving  and  lovely,  the  good,  the  glory,  the  sun¬ 
light  of  soul,  the  affections,  previously  dead,  wake 


JUSTIFICATION  WANTED.  213 

into  life  and  joyful  play,  ana  what  before  was  only  a 
self-lifting  and  slavish  effort  becomes  an  exulting  spirit 
of  liberty.  The  body  of  sin  and  death  that  lay  upon  the 
soul  is  heaved  off,  and  the  law  of  the  spirit  of  life  in 
Christ  Jesus — the  Eternal  Life  manifested  in  him,  and 
received  by  faith  into  a  vital  union — quickens  it  in 
good,  and  makes  it  free. 

Bu,  there  is  yet  another  difficulty,  over  and  above  the 
deadness  and  the  moral  estrangement  of  the  affections ;  I 
speak  of  the  fearful  and  self-accusing  spirit  of  sin. 
Reason  as  we  may  about  human  depravity,  apologize  for 
men,  or  justify  them  as  we  may,  they  certainly  do  not 
justify  themselves.  Even  in  the  deepest  mental  dark¬ 
ness  concerning  God,  stifled,  we  may  almost  say,  as 
regards  their  proper  humanity,  under  the  sottish  and  de¬ 
basing  effects  of  idolatry,  still  we  see  the  conscience 
struggling  with  guilty  fears,  unable  to  find  rest.  An  in¬ 
describable  dread  of  evil  still  overhangs  the  human  spirit. 
The  being  is  haunted  by  shadows  of  wrath  and  tries  all 
painful  methods  of  self  pacification.  Vigils,  pilgrimages, 
sacrifices,  tortures,  nothing  is  too  painful  or  wearisome 
that  promises  to  ease  the  guilt  of  the  mind.  Without 
any  speculations  about  justification,  mankind  refuse  tc 
justify  themselves.  A  kind  of  despair  fills  the  heart  of 
the  lace.  They  have  no  courage.  Whether  they  know 
Goo  or  not,  they  know  themselves,  and  they  sentence 
themselves  tc  death.  If  they  have  only  some  obscure 
notion?  of  a  divine  Being,  then  they  dread  the  full  dis¬ 
covery  of  Him.  If  He  lurks  in  their  gods,  they  fear 
lest  their  gods  should  visit  them  in  vengeance,  or  plague 


214 


JUSTIFICATION 


them  by  some  kind  of  mischief.  The  sky  is  full  of 
wrathful  powers,  and  the  deep  ground  also  is  full.  Their 
guilty  soul  peoples  the  world  with  vengeful  images  of  its 
own  creation. 

N 

And  here,  now,  if  we  desire  to  find  it,  is  the  tiue  idea 
of  Christian  justification.  We  discover  what  it  is  by 
the  want  of  it.  Justification  is  that  which  will  give 
confidence,  again,  to  guilty  minds  ;  that  which  will  assure 
the  base  and  humiliated  soul  of  the  world,  chase  away 
the  demons  of  wrath  and  despair  it  has  evoked,  and  help 
it  to  return  to  God  in  courage,  whispering  still  to  itself — 
soul  be  of  good  cheer,  thy  sins  are  forgiven  thee. 

And  this  result  is  beautifully  prepared  by  the  ad¬ 
vent  of  Christ,  as  well  as  by  the  crowning  act  of  his 
death.  God  thus  enters  humanity  as  the  Word  made 
flesh,  and  unites  himself  to  it,  declaring  by  that  sign, 
that  he  is  ready  to  unite  it  unto  himself.  We  perceive 
also  and  hear  that  he  has  come,  not  to  condemn  the 
world,  but  to  save  it.  No  storm  wraps  him  about  when 
he  comes.  The  hymn  that  proclaims  him,  publishes — 
“  peace  on  earth.”  He  appears  in  a  form  to  indicate  the 
gentlest  errand  and  the  closest  approach  to  our  human 
lot ;  one,  too,  that  never  appalls  the  guiltiest — the  form  of 
a  child.  In  his  ministry  he  sometimes  utters  piercing 
words,  still  he  is  a  friend,  even  a  brother  to  the 
guilty.  He  calls  the  heavy-laden  to  come  unto  him,  and 
promises  rest.  In  short,  he  lives  confidence  into  the 
world.  Apart  from  all  theologic  theories,  we  know,  we 
see  with  our  eyes,  that  God  will  justify  us  and  give  us 
still  his  peace.  And  then,  when  we  truly  come  unto 


ASSURED  TO  US  IN  CHRIST. 


215 


nim,  believing  that  Christ  the  Word  is  He,  when,  for¬ 
saking  all  things  for  him,  we  embrace  him  as  our  life, 
then  are  we  practically  justified.  It  is  impossible  for  us 
to  fear.  No  guilt  of  the  past  can  disturb  us ;  a  peace 
that  passeth  understanding  fills  our  nature.  Being  justi- 
tified  by  faith,  we  have  peace  with  God  through  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ. 

Or,  if  we  advert,  in  this  connection,  to  the  sufferings 
and  death  of  Christ,  we  shall  see  how  these,  without  the 
imputation  of  any  penal  quality  or  frown  of  God  upon 
his  person,  have  a  special  efficacy  in  fortifying  our  assur¬ 
ance  or  hope  of  justification  with  God.  Dismiss  all 
speculation  about  the  mode,  possibility,  interior  reality  of 
this  suffering ;  understand  that  God,  having  proposed,  in 
this  manner,  to  express  His  love,  all  logical,  theological, 
ontological,  physiological  questions  are,  by  the  supposi¬ 
tion,  out  of  place.  Ccome,  then,  to  the  spectacle  of 
Christ’s  suffering  life  and  death,  as  to  a  mystery  wholly 
transcendent,  save  in  what  it  expresses  of  Divine  feeling. 
Call  what  of  this  feeling  you  receive  the  reality — all  else 
the  machina  Dei  for  the  expression  of  this.  With 
deepest  reverence  of  soul,  approach  that  most  mysterious 
sacrament  of  love,  the  agony  of  Jesus;  note  the  patience 
of  his  trial,  the  meekness  of  his  submission  to  injustice, 
and  the  malignant  passions  of  his  enemies  ;  behold  the 
creation  itself  darkening  and  shuddering  with  a  horror  of 
sensibility  at  the  scene  transpiring  in  his  death  ;  hear 
the  cry  of  the  crucified — “Father,  forgive  them,  for  they 
know  not  what  they  do then  regard  the  life  that  was 
manifested,  dropping  into  cessation,  and  thereby  signi¬ 
fying  the  deposit  of  itself  in  the  bosom  of  that  malign 


216 


J  U  S  T  I  F  ICATIC  N 


world,  to  whose  enmity  it  is  yielded — who,  what  man  of 
our  race  beholding  this  strange  history  of  the  Word,  will 
not  feel  a  new  courage  enter  into  his  soul  ?  Visibly,  God 
is  not  the  implacable  avenger  his  guilty  fears  had  painted. 
But  he  is  a  friend,  he  is  love.  And  so  great  is  this 
change,  apart  from  all  theology,  that  I  seem  even  to  see 
another  character  produced  by  it,  in  the  Christian  nations. 
They  dare  to  hope.  God  is  closer  to  them  and  in  a  way 
to  inspire  courage.  They  are  not  withered,  humiliated 
even  to  baseness,  under  those  guilty  and  abject  fears  that 
take  away  at  last  the  spirit  of  other  nations.  It  is  not 
that  they  have  all  a  theory  of  justification  by  faith,  but 
that  their  current  conceptions  of  God  are  such  as  the 
history  of  Jesus,  the  suffering  redeemer,  has  imparted. 
They  have  a  feeling  of  something  like  justification,  even 
if  they  never  heard  of  it — a  feeling,  which,  if  it  were  to 
vent  itself  in  language,  would  say — Therefore  we  are 
freely  justified  by  grace.  It  is  not  that  the  suffering 
appeases  God,  but  that  it  expresses  God — displays,  in 
open  history,  the  unconquerable  love  of  God’s  Heart. 


But  what,  in  this  view,  some  will  ask,  becomes  of  the 
law  and  justice  of  God  ?  First,  we  have  Christ,  inter- 

/rupting  the  flow  of  justice  by  delivering  men,  or  assisting 
them  to  deliver  themselves  from  the  penal  consequences 
of  transgression  ;  from  the  blindness,  bitterness,  dead- 
ness,  and  other  disabilities  it  produces.  Secondly,  there 
is  made  out,  or  given  to  men,  a  confidence  equally  repug¬ 
nant  to  justice,  that  God  will  freely  accept,  embrace,  and 
even  justify  the  transgressor  who  forsakes  his  sin. 
Where,  now,  it  will  be  asked,  is  government  ?  Wha* 


PREPARED  IN  US. 


21? 

becomes  of  law  ?  And  since  God’s  love  of  right,  or 
what  is  the  same,  his  justice,  was  evidenced  by  his  law 
and  the  penalties  added  to  enforce  it,  what  shall  save  the 
obligation  of  the  law  ;  what,  indeed,  shall  displace  the  am¬ 
biguity  that  shades  the  divine  character  itself?  Hence 
the  necessity,  it  is  argued,  of  some  vicarious  suffering,  or 
expression  made  by  suffering,  that  shall  vindicate  the  law 
as  effectively  as  the  penalties  remitted  would  have  done, 
and  thus  shall  save  the  moral  rigor  of  God’s  integrity,  in 
the  view  of  his  subjects. 

But,  granting  this,  it  does  not  follow  that  the  new  vi¬ 
carious  expression  of  God  must  be  made  by  a  process 
equally  vindictive  with  punishment ;  or  that  God’s  ab¬ 
horrence  to  sin  must  be  poured  out  upon  Christ’s  own 
person.  Neither  does  it  follow,  as  our  theories  of  vica¬ 
rious  atonement  generally  assume,  that  the  grand  judi¬ 
cial  and  penal  demonstration,  supposed  to  be  necessary 
is  wanted  before  the  high  court  of  the  universe  tc 
answer  the  public  ends  of  government  there.  We  may. 
doubtless,  assume  to  know  that  all  the  transactions  ol 
God,  in  all  his  worlds,  constitute,  when  taken  together, 
a  sublime  and  perfect  unity ;  and  that,  when  they 
are  mutually  known  in  worlds  now  sundered,  they  will  be 
received  as  displays  of  His  “manifold  [that  is,  various, 
diversified]  wisdom,”  and  the  adorable  fertility  and 
grandeur  of  His  government.  And  so  each  part  of  the 
universe,  by  the  contribution  of  its  own  particular  history, 
will  exalt  and  fortify  the  admiration  of  all  towards  the 
common  Lord  and  King.  But  as  regards  the  effect  oi 
Christ’s  death,  taken  as  a  central  spectacle  in  the  uni¬ 
verse,  and  designed  to  impress  the  minds  of  God’s  other 
19 


218 


JUSTIFICATION 


subjects,  and  fortify  His  sway  in  other  worlds,  mani* 
festly  we  know  nothing  of  it ;  and  all  that  is  advanced 
by  our  theologians  in  regaid  to  it,  is  to  be  taken  only  as 
evidence  that  the  traditional  effects  of  the  Ptolemaic  sys¬ 
tem  continue  for  so  long  a  time  in  theology,  after  they 
have  disappeared  from  the  almanac.  If  a  vindication  of 
God’s  law  is  wanted,  in  order  to  the  offer  of  forgiveness, 
it  is  wanted  here,  and  for  effect  in  this  world.  And  if 
we  narrowly  inspect  the  case  presented,  we  shall  be  at 
no  loss  in  regard  to  the  real  ground  of  such  a  necessity. 
For  it  is  even  a  fundamental  condition,  as  regards  moral 
effect  on  our  character,  that,  while  courage  and  hope  are 
given  us,  we  should  be  made,  at  the  same  time,  to  feel  the 
intensest  possible  sense  of  the  sanctity  of  the  law,  and 
the  inflexible  righteousness  of  God.  What  we  need,  in 
this  view,  is  some  new  expression  of  God,  which,  taken 
as  addressed  to  us>  will  keep  alive  the  impression  in  us, 
that  God  suffers  no  laxity.  In  a  word,  we  must  be  made 
to  feel,  in  the  very  article  of  forgiveness,  when  it  is 
offered,  the  essential  and  eternal  sanctity  of  God’s  law — 
His  own  immovable  adherence  to  it,  as  the  only  basis  of 
order  and  well-being  in  the  universe. 

As  to  the  manner  in  which  this  desired  result  is 
effected,  since  it  presents  the  hinge  question  at  issue 
between  Unitarianism  and  orthodoxy,  I  will  dilate  upon 
it  here  as  the  gravity  of  the  question  demands. 

On  one  side,  it  is  affirmed  that  God  could  not  forgive 
sin,  either  without  an  equivalent  suffering,  or  an  equiva¬ 
lent  expression  of  abhorrence  to  sin  made  by  suffering, 
in  the  place  of  punishment,  f  On  the  other  side,  since 
this  doctrine,  in  either  form  of  it,  seems  to  involve  some 


IIOW  PREPARED. 


219 


thing  offensive  to  our  moral  sense,  or  repugnant  to  our 
ideas  of  God,  it  is  affirmed  that  God,  out  of  His 
simple  goodness  or  paternity,  can  forgive,  and  will 
forgive  every  truly  penitent  sinner.  Satisfied  with 
neither  doctrine,  for  the  reasons  urged  by  one  against 
the  other,  and,  perhaps  I  should  say,  with  both, 
for  the  reasons  urged  by  each  in  its  own  behalf,  I  ven¬ 
ture  to  suggest,  as  the  more  real  and  reasonable  view, 
that,  in  order  to  make  men  penitent,  and  so  to  want  for¬ 
giveness — that  is,  to  keep  the  world  alive  to  the  eternal 
integrity,  verity,  and  sanctity  of  God’s  law — that  is,  to 
keep  us  apprized  of  sin,  and  deny  us  any  power  of  rest 
while  we  continue  under  sin  ;  it  was  needful  that  Christ, 
in  his  life  and  sufferings,  should  consecrate  or  reconse¬ 
crate  the  desecrated  law  of  God,  and  give  it  a  more 
exact  and  imminent  authority  than  it  had  before — this, 
too,  without  anything  of  a  penal  quality  in  his  passion, 
without  regarding  him  as  bearing  evil  to  pay  the  release  ol 
evil,  or  as  under  any  infliction  or  frown  of  God,  and 
yet  doing  it  by  something  expressed  in  his  life  and  death. 

I  will  name,  in  this  view,  four  methods  in  which  Christ 
is  seen  to  have  brought  the  law  closer  to  men’s  souls, 
and  given  it  even  a  more  sacred  rigor  and  verity  than  it 
had  before  his  advent. 

1.  By  his  teachings  concerning  it.  John  the  Baptist 
had  an  altogether  different  conception  of  Christ,  from 
that  which  is  entertained  by  our  modern  Christian  world. 
He  looked  upon  the  advent  of  Jesus  as  the  advent  of  a 
new  and  more  fearful  revelation  of  God.  Now  he  was 
coming  to  lay  the  axe  to  the  root  of  every  unfruitful  tree, 
coming  with  the  fan  in  his  hand  to  sift  out  the  pure  wheat 


220 


JUSTIFICATION, 


of  character,  and  burn  up  the  chaff  of  religious  pretense 
and  hypocrisy,  as  in  a  fire. 

Accordingly,  there  is  no  chapter  in  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment,  where  the  law  of  God  is  held  up  in  such  terms  ol 
rigor  and  exactness,  as  it  is  in  the  sermon  on  the  mount 
the  very  first  exposition  that  Christ  made  of  his  mission. 
Eternity  was  before  seen  only  under  a  veil.  It  had  been 
revealed  more  by  implication  than  by  express  teachings. 
Here  it  is  visibly  set  open  by  Christ,  and  the  law  of  God, 
so  much  occupied  before  with  outward  service,  so  exclu¬ 
sively  maintained  by  temporal  penalties,  is  now  spiritu¬ 
alized  in  every  statute,  rolled  back  upon  the  very 
thoughts  and  motions  of  the  heart,  and  uttered  there, 
under  the  sanction  of  eternal  retributions.  Christ  even 
declares  that  no  jot  or  tittle  of  the  law  shall  pass  away 
— that  he  comes,  on  the  contrary,  to  fulfill  the  law;  that  is 
to  fill  it  out,  bring  it  into  spiritual  application,  and  main¬ 
tain  it  by  the  distributions  of  a  future  state.  I  am  well 
aware  that  what  I  here  advance  is  specially  repugnant 
to  certain  modern  assumptions  concerning  Christianity, 
as  a  scheme  of  mere  humanities  apart  from  government ; 
a  scheme  all  leniency  and  accommodation.  I  go  into  no 
issue  here  on  this  question.  I  only  say,  what  is  obvious 
to  any  one,  on  simple  inspection,  that  the  law  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  is  as  much  more  stern  in  the  form  Christ  gives  it, 
and  its  distributions  as  much  more  appalling,  as  the  pre¬ 
cept  is  deeper,  and  the  eternity  of  its  reign  more  open  tc 
view.  If  any  one  has  an  explanation  to  give,  whether 
of  this  or  the  Old  Testament  severities,  the  way  is  open; 
only  be  it  agreed  that  Christianity  as  set  forth  by  Christ, 
instead  of  pretending  to  be  a  looser,  more  accommodating 


HOW  PREPARED. 


221 


faith,  is,  in  fact,  a  law-system  more  exact  and  appalling. 
It  expresses  the  mercy  and  love  of  God,  the  freedom, 
tenderness,  and  impartiality  of  his  compassions,  and  just 
as  much  more  intensely,  the  truth  compels  me  to  say,  the 
holiness,  exactness  and  sacred  rigor  of  his  law. 

This  I  say  as  by  direction  ;  for  I  feel  that  nothing 
could  be  more  unacceptable  to  the  judgments  of  this  age 
of  the  world.  I  say  it  also  witn  some  proper  sense,  I 
trust,  of  the  possible  aberration  of  the  judgments  of  the 
age  ;  for  every  age  has  its  own  drift  and  fashion,  in  which, 
though  it  be  infallible  to  itself,  it  is  often  found,  by  those 
that  come  after,  to  have  seized  upon  assumptions  that 
God  had  never  yielded,  to  have  constructed  a  wisdom 
which  human  society  could  not  bear,  and  time  refused  to 
audit.  Believing,  therefore,  that  Christianity  is  wiser  than 
the  age,  I  prefer  to  let  it  stand  in  that  stern  aspect  it 
assumes  for  itself,  and  offer  its  mercy  to  man  out  of  cloud 
and  darkness  which  I  know  not  how  to  clear.  Most 
assuredly  there  is  no  look  of  laxity  or  inexactness  in  it  or 
its  law.  It  is  nowhere  in  the  vein  of  indifference,  or 
false  pity  to  man. 

But  there  is  a  deeper  expression  in  the  life  and  death 
of  Christ  than  any  that  is  offered  by  his  mere  words. 
And  it  is  here,  especially,  that  he  fulfills  the  office  of  a 
sacrifice,  of  which  so  much  is  said  in  the  scripture ; 
which,  if  we  investigate,  we  shall  find  that  he  sanctifies 
the  law  before  which  he  offers  forgiveness,  in  three  other 
distinct  methods,  analogous  to  those  by  which  the  ritual 
sacrifices  became  effectual — (2.)  by  obedience,  (3.)  by 
expense  and  painstaking  (4.)  by  the  offering  of  his 

Life,  as  a  sacred  contribution. 

19* 


22? 


JUSTIFICA  riON, 


To  each  of  the  methods  thus  numerically  indicated 
I  will  recur,  in  successive  illustrations,  after  I  have  suffi 
ciently  examined  the  ritual  economy  of  sacrifice  to  be¬ 
come  possessed  of  the  analogies  it  offers. 

The  institution  of  sacrifice  is  most  reasonably  regarded 
as  a  positive  institution,  originally  appointed  by  God. 
We  find  the  rite  in  use  at  a  time  when  marriage,  a  far 
less  artificial  institution,  is  represented  as  being  re¬ 
ceived  by  God’s  appointment,  and  when  he  himself  was 
introducing,  by  his  lessons,  the  culture  of  the  ground  and 
even  the  dress  of  the  body.  It  was  most  natural,  too,  that, 
when  he  was  teaching  the  guilty,  fallen  pair  their  severance 
from  him,  by  removing  them  from  their  paradise,  he 
should  also  teach  them  by  what  rites  of  penitence  and 
worship  they  might  be  purified  and  restored  to  union  with 
him.  We  also  find  a  positive  statute  enacted,  at  a  very 
early  period,  forbidding  the  eating  of  blood,  the  object  of 
which  is  to  make  it  a  sacred  thing  for  the  uses  of  the 
altar.  Afterwards,  undeniably,  the  system  of  sacrifice 
was  carefully  elaborated  by  the  minutest  and  most  spe¬ 
cific  positive  statutes.  Besides,  which  to  me  is  most 
convincing  of  all,  there  is  a  certain  fore-looking  in  this 
ritual,  and  then,  when  Christ  appears,  a  certain  retrospec¬ 
tion,  one  answering  to  the  other,  one  preparing  words 
and  symbols  to  express  the  other,  and  a  beautiful  and 
even  artistic  correspondence  kept  up,  such  as  argues  in¬ 
vention,  plan,  appointment,  and  indicates  a  Divine  coun¬ 
sel  present,  connecting  the  remote  ages  of  time,  and 
weaving  them  together  into  a  compact  and  well-adjusted 
whole.  And  if  the  redemption  of  man  is  the  great  work 
of  the  world,  that  in  which  all  existences  here  find  their 


IIOW  PREPARED. 


223 


highest  import,  as  most  assuredly  it  is,  then  what  may 
better  occupy  the  wisdom  and  the  greatness  of  God,  than 
the  preparation  of  so  great  a  work  ? 

The  matter  and  manner  of  the  sacrifice  are  familiar 
to  us  all — the  going  up  to  Jerusalem,  driving  thither,  or 
purchasing  there,  a  choice,  unblemished  animal ;  the  con¬ 
fession  of  sin  upon  his  head  before  the  altai  ;  the  solemn 
formalities  of  the  slaughter  and  preparation  of  the  sacri¬ 
fice  ;  the  sacred  blood  sprinkled  before  the  vail  that  is 
closed  against  unholy  feet,  the  horns  of  the  altar  touched 
with  blood,  and  the  remainder  poured  out  before  it  on  the 
ground ;  then  the  fire  kindled  and  the  smoke  of  the  vic¬ 
tim,  made  a  total  loss  for  sin,  rolling  up  before  the  eyes  of 
the  worshipper  to  heaven.  And  then  he  returns  again  to 
his  tribe,  thinking,  on  the  way,  of  the  journey  he  has 
undertaken  for  his  sins — as  he  went  up  thinking  of  the 
sins  that  required  him  to  go. 

What,  now,  is  the  real  meaning  or  value  of  this  trans¬ 
action  ?  The  ceremony  is  proposed  to  be  connected 
with  the  remission  of  sins — how  thus  connected  ? 

It  is  not  Tiiat  God  has  been  appeased  by  the  smell  of  the 
sacrifice.  It  is  called  an  atonement,  or  propitiation,  but 
it  cannot  be  supposed  that  God  is  pacified  in  any  way  by 
the  sacrifice. 

It  is  not  that  the  worshipper  has  embraced  the  atone¬ 
ment  of  Christ,  typified  in  his  sacrifice,  as  we  sometimes 
hear.  He  had  no  such  conception.  Even  the  sacred 
prophets  themselves,  we  are  told,  were  guessing  what,  as 
well  as  what  manner  of  time,  the  Spirit  that  was  in 
them  did  signify  when  they  spoke  of  Christ  and  his  day. 
Nay,  his  own  disciples,  explicitly  taught  by  himself 


224 


JUSTIFICATION, 


could  n  Jt  understand  the  import  of  his  death  till  they 
were  specially  illuminated.  Doubtless  the  worshipper 
had  sometimes,  and  ought  always  to  have,  exercised  faith 
in  God,  as  a  forgiver  of  sin  ;  and,  as  God  is  Christ  and 
Christ  is  God,  there  was  exercised,  of  course,  a  virtual, 
but  not  formal  faith  in  the  Christ  of  the  future. 

It  is  not  true  or  supposable,  as  needs  to  be  specially 
noted,  that  the  animal  offered  is  punished  for  the  sins  oi 
the  worshipper.  No  hint  or  trace  of  any  such  impres¬ 
sion  can  be  found.  Nor  can  it  be  argued  from  the  con¬ 
fession  of  sins  upon  the  head  of  the  victim  ;  for,  when 
the  scape-goat  is  employed,  the  confession  upon  his  head 
is  even  more  formal,  and  yet  the  animal  is  only  driven 
away  into  the  wilderness  to  signify  the  clearing  of  sin, 
its  forgiveness  and  removal  forever.  Besides,  if  there 
were  any  idea  of  punishment  connected  with  the  sacri¬ 
fice,  if  the  death  of  the  animal  had  a  penal  character,  be¬ 
cause  of  the  sins  supposed  to  rest  on  it,  then  something 
would  be  made  of  the  suffering  inflicted ;  which  we 
know  was  never  thought  of,  and  made  no  part  of  the 
transaction.  The  animal  was  simply  dispatched,  as 
when  slaughtered  for  the  table,  and  it  nowhere  appears, 
in  the  whole  range  of  Hebrew  literature,  that  any  one 
ever  thought  of  the  sufferings  of  the  animal,  as  entering 
at  all  into  the  real  moment  of  the  transaction. 

We  come  now  to  that  in  which  the  real  value  of  the 
sacrifice  did  consist.  The  institution  had,  of  course,  a 
historic  value  as  connected  with  the  future  life  and  work 
of  the  incarnate  Redeemer  ;  for  in  it  are  prepared  cor¬ 
respondences  and,  so,  types  or  bases  of  language,  in 
which  that  more  spiritual  grace  may  be  represented.  I 


HOW  PREPARED. 


225 


had  also  a  va.ue,  considered  as  part  of  a  great  national 
religion,  in  which  public  remembrance  of  sin  is  made 
every  year.  It  was  also,  as  a  rite,  to  have  a  renovating 
power  over  the  character,  somewhat  as  the  manifested 
Life  in  Christ  Jesus  is  designed  to  have ;  only  in  a  vastly 
feebler  and  inferior  degree.  And  therefore,  in  cases 
where  it  had  no  such  effect,  it  was  openly  declared,  on 
the  part  of  God,  to  be  an  abomination  to  him,  and  as 
such  to  be  rejected.  The  value  of  the  sacrifice  lay 
chiefly,  however,  in  the  power  it  had  over  the  religious 
character — the  impressions,  exercises,  aids,  and  princi¬ 
ples,  which,  as  a  liturgy,  it  wrought  in  the  soul  of  the 
worshipper.  And  among  these,  as  connected  especially 
with  the  remission  of  sins,  was  the  impression  it  cher¬ 
ished  of  the  sanctity  of  violated  law  ;  for,  as  I  have  said 
already,  it  is  on  the  ground  of  that  impression  secured, 
both  that  forgiveness  will  be  wanted,  and  may  be  safely 
offered. 

We  come  back,  then,  from  our  excursion,  to  the  three 
points  above  stated,  to  show  how  both  Christ  and  the 
ritual  sacrifice  do,  in  correspondent  methods,  sanc¬ 
tify  the  law,  or  deepen  the  impressions  held  of  its  sanctity, 
in  the  minds  of  those  who  are  exercised  under  them.  Re¬ 
suming  our  course  of  argument,  I  observe — 

2.  That  Christ,  coincidently  with  the  ritual  sacrifice, 
fortjfies  and  sanctifies  the  law  through  his  obedience. 
God  appointed  for  the  Hebrew  nation  a  great  public  rite, 
one  that  required  them,  every  year,  to  go  up  to  the  capital 
city,  and  there,  in  a  vast  assemblage  of  worshippers,  offer 
their  sacrifice  for  sin.  The  design  evidently  was  that  as 
every  man,  by  his  sin,  weakens  the  sense  of  obligation 


22(5 


JUSTIFICATION, 


and  desecrates  the  authority  of  Goa,  so  by  this  grand 
public  acknowledgment  of  God  s  authority,  they  should 
give  their  testimony  to  the  sacredness  of  His  will. 
What  people,  consenting,  every  year,  at  God’s  command, 
in  such  an  ordinance — men  of  all  ranks  and  characters 
leaving  their  homes  and  going  up  to  the  religious  capital, 
there  to  make  a  public  confession  of  their  sin — would 
ever  be  in  danger  of  holding  a  loose  opinion  of  God’s 
authority,  or  the  sanctity  of  obligation,  however  freely 
their  sins  are  forgiven  ? 

The  same  impression  is  made,  and  far  more  deeply,  by 
the  obedience  of  Christ ;  for,  considering  who  he  is, 
there  is  more  of  meaning  in  his  obedience  than  there  is 
in  the  obedience  of  many  nations.  Regard  him  as 
coming  under  the  desecrated  law — which  he  does  in  the 
mystery  of  his  incarnation  ;  then  consider  the  import  of 
his  life,  taken  in  the  simple  aspect  of  a  free,  faithful, 
loving,  unfaltering  obedience — obedience  unto  death. 
And  then,  if  the  speculative  instinct  rushes  in  to  insist 
on  the  absurdity  of  obedience  in  a  being  whose  nature  is 
essential  deity,  let  it  be  enough  to  reply  that  there  is  no 
being  in  the  universe,  of  whom  obedience  can  be  predi¬ 
cated  in  so  vast  a  sense  as  of  God.  For  though  God  is 
under  no  obligations  to  another,  he  is  yet  under  obliga¬ 
tions  tc  goodness  to  devise,  do,  bear,  forbear,  suffer,  all 
which  the  conception  or  idea  of  infinite  goodness  and 
love  contains.  He  is  really  under  the  same  law  of  obli¬ 
gation  that  we  were  under  and  cast  off,  and  it  is  the  glory 
and  greatness  of  his  nature  that  he  delights  eternally  tc 
acknowledge  this  law.  Christ  is  the  manifested  Life 
revealing  this  everlasting  obedience  of  the  divine  nature. 


nOW  PREPARED. 


227 


All  that  he  does  and  suffers  is  but  an  expression  of  the 
homage,  rendered  by  God  himself,  to  that  which  we 
reject ;  and  the  only  object  of  his  mission  is  to  bring  us 
back  into  a  like  free  obedience  to  the  same  lovely  require¬ 
ment.  His  poverty  and  patience,  his  weary,  persecuted 
life,  his  agony,  his  cross,  his  death — exclude  from  these 
all  thought  of  penal  suffering  or  vindictive  chastisement, 
regard  him  simply  as  supporting,  thus,  the  call  of  duty, 
and  signifying  to  mankind  the  self-renouncing  and 
sublime  obedience  of  the  divine  nature — what  an  ex¬ 
pression  of  love  to  the  right,  and  homage  to  law !  How 
sacred  now  is  law ! — how  sacred,  yet  how  lovely !  Why, 
the  punishment  of  all  mankind,  even  for  eternity,  could 
not  signify  as  much. 

3.  Christ,  coincidently  with  the  sin  offering,  sanctifies 
the  law  through  expense  and  painstaking.  The  sacri 
ficer  must  come  bringing  the  best  and  choicest  of  his 
flock,  a  lamb  or  a  bullock  without  blemish.  He  must  be 
absent  from  home,  and  leave  his  business  behind,  for  whole 
days — all  in  the  way  of  expense  and  painstaking  for  his 
sins.  And,  in  one  view,  the  expense  he  makes  is  wholly 
useless — a  dead  loss.  The  victim,  the  choice  animal  that 
was  reared  so  carefully,  is  wholly  burnt  up,  changed  into 
smoke  before  his  eyes — all  under  the  law  and  by  the  law, 
desecrated  by  his  sins.  God  will  not  even  let  him  give  it 
to  charitable  uses,  lest  he  should  be  thinking  of  merit, 
when  he  ought  to  be  thinking  of  his  sins.  It  must  go 
to  smoke  and  simple  destruction,  and  then  the  sacrifice 
will  move  his  conscience.  He  will  feel  that  the  stern 
mandate  of  God  is  upon  him.  It  wih  De  as  if  he  came 
to  salve  the  violated  law,  by  a  willing  loss  of  time  and 


JUSTIFICATION, 


0‘)« 

<//wu 

property,  laying  h's  humble  acknowledgments  and  drop¬ 
ping  his  tears  upon  the  breaches  and  scars  his  sins  hav<* 
made. 

So,  also,  Christ,  by  the  sorrow  and  suffering  of  his 
painstaking  life,  accomplished  a  like  result.  Regarding 
him,  not  as  acting  here  before  the  law,  in  some  abstract 
way,  or  with  a  view  to  some  governmental  effect  in  other 
and  remote  fields  of  being,  but  as  being  engaged  simply 
to  win  us  back  to  newness  of  life,  and  restore  us  to  union 
with  God,  it  results  that,  by  his  sufferings,  he  does 
express  the  intense  love  of  God  to  His  law,  and  also 
impress  in  our  souls  a  most  deep  and  subduing  sense  of  its 
value  and  sacredness.  And  this  he  does,  not  by  saying, 
“see  me  suffer,”  or  “see  what  sufferings  the  Father  lays 
upon  me for  by  that  volunteering  of  naked  suffering, 
according  to  the  known  laws  of  expression,  nothing  would 
be  expressed,  as  I  have  already  shown.  This  suffering  is 
expressive,  because  it  is  incidental  to  an  effort  to  reveal 
the  love  of  God,  and  bring  the  eternal  Life  into  the  closest 
possible  proximity  to  our  human  hearts.  And  the  suffer¬ 
ing  we  speak  of  has  its  power,  not  as  answering  to  the 
sufferings  of  the  victim  in  the  sacrifice,  for  nothing  is 
made  of  the  sufferings  of  the  victim,  but  as  answering 
rather  to  the  expense  and  painstaking  and  solemn  prepa¬ 
ration  of  the  whole  ceremony. 

If  we  look  upon  it  as  the  very  end  and  aim  of  Christ’s 
mission,  to  recover  man  to  God  and  obedience  ;  or,  whac 
is  the  same,  to  re-establish  the  law  as  a  living  power  in 
his  heart ;  then,  of  course,  everything  he  does  and  suffers, 
every  labor,  weariness,  self-denial  and  sorrow  becomes 
an  expression  of  his  sense  of  the  value  of  the  law — everj 


IIOW  PREPARED. 


229 


pang  he  endui  es,  declares  its  sacredness.  So  that  if  he 
offers  pardon,  free  pardon,  to  every  transgressor,  we  shall 
never  connect  a  feeling  of  license,  but  shall  rather  feel  a 
sense  of  the  eternal  sanctity  of  the  law,  and  have  a  more 
tremulous  awe  of  it  in  our  conscience,  than  we  should  if 
every  transgressor  were  held  to  punishment  by  the  letter 
of  it.  Indeed,  if  that  were  the  doctrine,  we  should  reason 
away  and  reject  the  doctrine  as  incredible  ;  so  that  it 
would  have  no  verity,  and,  of  course,  no  sacredness  at  all. 
Whereas,  having  seen,  in  the  painstaking,  suffering  life  of 
Jesus,  what  God  will  do  for  the  practical  establishment 
of  his  law,  we  are  seized  with  a  deep  and  awe-felt  con¬ 
viction,  that  if  we  do  not  return  to  it  according  to  his 
call,  there  is  yet  something  different  that  must  assuredly 
follow.  All  this,  you  perceive,  without  anything  said  of 
a  penal  quality,  in  the  sufferings  of  Christ.  No  evil  is 
laid  upon  him  as  evil,  by  the  Father,  to  be  endured  retri- 
butively.  He  only  suffers  the  ills  that  lie  in  his  way, 
and  endures  the  violence  that  human  malignity  and 
cruelty  heap  on  his  head. 

But  this,  it  will  be  apprehended  by  some,  destroys  the 
whole  import  of  such  scenes  as  the  agony  and  the  cruci¬ 
fixion.  It  may  require  a  different  construction  of  these 
scenes,  but  I  hope  it  will  not  be  too  hastily  concluded 
that  a  different  construction  robs  them  of  their  sacred 
import  and  power.  It  is  imagined,  by  many,  that  what 
is  called  the  “agony”  of  Jesus,  was  caused  by  the  penal 
attitude  in  which  he  found  himself  before  the  Father,  and 
the  consequent  sense  of  desertion  he  felt.  What  account, 
then,  shall  we  make  of  this  very  wonderful  and  peculiar 

passage  in  his  history  ?  Evidently  it  is  not  from  any 
20 


230 


JUSTIFICATION, 


human  fear  that  he  suffers  ;  for  the  pathology  observed  is 
not  that  of  fear — there  is  no  pallor,  the  blood  does  not 
fly  the  skin,  retreating  as  in  fear  on  the  springs  of  life, 
but  it  is  forced  even  through  the  skin,  as  was  never 
observed,  it  must  be  granted,  in  any  case  of  mere  human 
sufferirg.  It  was  not  that  the  soul  of  the  sufferer  was 
racked,  by  a  sense  of  the  withdrawment  of  the  Father. 
How  could  the  Father  withdraw  from  so  great  excellence 
and  purity,  under  so  great  a  burden  of  sorrow — what 
end  could  it  serve,  thus  to  falsify  his  character  ?  Be¬ 
sides,  it  was  only  just  now  that  Christ  was  saying, — 
“therefore  doth  my  Father  love  me,  because  I  lay  down 
my  life  for  the  sheep,” — also,  directly  to  the  Father, — “I 
have  glorified  thee  on  the  earth,  now  I  come  to  thee.”  It  is 
also  represented,  by  Luke,  that  an  angel  is  sent  to 
strengthen  and  support  him — sent  by  the  Father  to  sup¬ 
port  him  under  His  own  displeasure  !  Sometimes  the 
exclamation,  which  he  uttered  afterwards,  on  the  cross, 
is  made  to  assist  the  interpretation  of  the  agony  also — • 
“  My  God  !  my  God  !  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me  !”  But 
this  is  only  the  language  of  intense  suffering,  an  inter 
jection,  so  to  speak,  of  anguish.  Besides,  it  appears  to 
have  had  a  current  use  ;  for  we  find  it  more  than  once  in 
the  poetic  writings  of  the  Old  Testament.  Thus,  Isaiah 
represents  Zion  as  crying  out  in  distress, — “  the  Lord 
hath  forsaken  me  ;”  when  God  immediately  responds, — 
"  I  have  graven  thee  upon  the  palms  of  my  hands.”  To 
take  this  language  of  passion,  this  common  outcry  of  dis¬ 
tress,  and  hold  it  in  a  cool,  historic,  or  dogmatic  sense,  is 
to  violate  all  dignified  laws  of  interpretation.  Besides, 
we  are  to  observe  that,  between  this  agony  and  the  trial 


HOW  PREPARED. 


231 


— probably  before  Christ  leaves  the  garden — we  hear  him 
saying.  “  thinkest  thou  that  I  cannot  now  pray  to  the 
Father,  and  he  shall,  presently,  give  me  more  than  twelve 
legions  of  angels?”  Was  he,  then,  deserted  of  the  Father? 

Rejecting  this  interpretation  of  the  agony,  we  take  up 
the  13th  and  following  chapters  of  John’s  gospel,  which 
contain  his  farewell  and  his  parting  prayer,  and  there  we 
see  that  the  whole  day  previous  had  been  a  day  of  unut¬ 
terable  sorrow  and  sadness  both  to  himself  and  his  disci¬ 
ples.  They  had  all  been  struggling  in  a  kind  of  agony 
from  the  early  morning,  it  will  be  seen,  down  to  the  mo¬ 
ment  when  they  entered  the  garden  ;  and  the  disciples 
were  so  spent  that  they  could  not  retain  their  conscious¬ 
ness  ; — “  He  found  them  sleeping  for  sorrow.”  He  only 
could  not  sleep,  for  the  cup  that  was  before  him  and 
might  not  pass  from  him.  But  why  is  he  wrenched  by 
this  so  peculiar  agony  ?  Consider,  I  answer,  that,  in  the 
outward  humanity  of  Jesus,  there  is  held,  in  some  close 
and  mysterious  union,  a  divine  nature  ;  and  then  will  our 
physiologists  or  physicians  tell  us  how  long  a  vehicle  so 
slender  is  to  support  the  tremendous  reaction  of  compas¬ 
sions  and  struggles  of  feeling  that  are  so  deeply  toned  ! 
or,  when  the  vehicle  breaks  under  the  burden,  by  what 
pathological  signs  it  will  be  discovered  !  Besides,  diis 
divine-human  being,  whose  interior  nature  we  are  forbid¬ 
den  to  investigate,  is  unquestionably  a  sinless  character, 
a  being  in  the  exactest  internal  harmony,  that  of  purity, 
innocence,  and  life.  He  has  never  felt  a  throb  of  sinful 
disturbance,  or  shaken  with  one  chill  of  death,  since  he 
came  forth  as  a  “  Holy  Thing,”  into  our  world.  Now; 
that  which  is  itself  the  type  and  fruit  of  sin,  bodily  death 


232 


JUSTIFICATION, 


is  at  hand  to  be  experienced.  Will  any  psychologist  cl 
theologian  tell  us  exactly  how  he  ought  to  feel,  whether 
he  will  suffer  less  than  a  man,  or  more  ?  If  innocence 
shudders  at  the  thought  of  wrong,  more  than  a  soul  that 
is  dulled  and  half  disintegrated  by  the  consciousness 
of  wrong,  may  it  not,  for  the  same  reasons,  shudder 
with  a  more  intense  horror,  before  the  prospect  of  that 
complete  disintegration  or  tearing  asunder,  which  is  the 
natural  doom  of  wrong  ?  If,  too,  a  massive  engine  may 
shake,  or  even  sink  a  frail  and  poorly  timbered  vessel  ; 
or  if  a  gigantic,  masculine  soul,  knit  to  the  body  of  a 
feeble  and  delicate  woman,  and,  in  that,  called  to  suffer 
martyrdom,  might  possibly  cause  it  to  shudder  and  shake 
with'  a  more  insupportable  horror,  than  the  delicate, 
feminine  soul  appropriate  to  its  measure  would  do,  what 
kind  of  demonstration  shall  be  expected,  when  the  Incar¬ 
nate  Word  is  summoned  to  die  ?  I  only  inquire,  you 
observe — I  assert  nothing  for  the  very  sufficient  reason 
that  I  know  nothing.  Enough  for  me,  that  my  Redeemer, 
my  most  painstaking  Saviour,  falters  not.  Enough  for 
me,  that  in  that  bloody  sweat,  falling  on  the  desecrated 
earth,  I  see  the  love  God  has  for  love,  the  unspeakable 
desire  He  feels  to  win  us  back  from  sin,  to  re-establish 
the  oi  ler  of  His  realm,  and  hallow,  for  eternity,  in  our 
hearts,  the  sanctity  of  His  violated  law.  No  concep¬ 
tion  of  a  penal  agony,  or  a  penal  cross  could  signify  as 
much. 

4.  The  law  of  God  is  yet  more  impressively  sanctified 
by  Christ,  if  possible,  in  the  article  of  his  death,  considered 
as  counterpart  to  the  uses  of  blood  in  the  ritual.  The 
admirable  ingenuity  of  the  ritual,  in  this  particular  feature 


HOW  PREPARED. 


233 

of  it,  and  also  the  intense  force  it  had,  as  an  artistic  plan, 
to  impress  on  the  mind  a  sense  of  the  holiness  of  God’s 
character  and  the  sacred  authority  of  His  government, 
must  appear,  I  think,  to  every  one  who  rightly  apprehends 
it.  The  plan  hangs  on  a  sense  produced  of  the  essential 
sacredness  of  blood.  At  the  very  first  institution,  proba¬ 
bly,  of  sacrifices,  (for  we  trace  it  as  early  as  the  times  of 
Noah,)  the  eating  of  blood  was  prohibited,  on  the  ground 
that  the  blood  is  the  life,  and  that  life  is  a  sacred  thing. 
There  was,  in  fact,  no  greater  crime  than  the  eating  of 
blood.  It  was  capitally  punished.  Even  a  stranger  was 
put  to  death  without  mercy,  who  had  been  guilty  of  the 
crime.  Now  the  whole  object  of  this  prohibition  was  to 
invest  the  element  of  blood  with  sacredness,  for  the  uses 
of  the  altar.  Thus  Moses,  in  the  17th  chapter  of  Leviti¬ 
cus,  which  I  will  venture  to  suggest  is  the  one  text, 
above  all  others,  to  open  the  true  idea  and  import  of  sin- 
offerings,  says,  “For  the  life  of  the  flesh  is  in  the  blood, 
and  I  have  given  it  to  you,  upon  the  altar,  to  make 
an  atonement  for  your  souls  ;  for  it  is  the  blood  that 
maketh  an  atonement  for  the  soul  ;  therefore,  I  said  unto 
the  children  of  Israel,  no  soul  of  you  shall  eat  the  blood.” 

In  this  manner  the  element  of  blood  was  invested  wifeh 
the  intensest  possible  sacredness.  Then,  when  the  wor¬ 
shipper  comes  before  God,  at  His  altar,  there  to  offei 
blood  and  life,  for  his  sin — to  see  the  sacred  drops  tha* 
contain  the  sacred  life  sprinkled  for  him,  before  the  holy 
of  holies,  and  touched  upon  the  horns  of  the  altar — 
what  is  he  saying  but  that  only  the  most  sacred  thing  he 
knows,  even  life,  can  suffice  to  resanctify  the  law,  violated 

by  his  sins  ?  Nay,  more,  a  sacred  thing  is  something  tha^ 
20* 


234 


J 1 STIFI CATION, 


belongs  especially  to  the  occupancy  and  right  of  God 
and  the  impression  was  that  blood,  being  the  mysterious 
principle  of  life,  is  somehow  specially  near  to  the  Divine 
nature — thus,  and  therefore,  sacred.  Accordingly,  when 
the  man  makes  an  offering  of  blood  for  the  remission  of 
his  sins,  doing  it  by  God’s  command,  he  professes,  in  the 
act,  that  only  something  derivable  from  God,  some  sacred 
element  yielded  by  Him,  can  suffice  to  cover  his  sin 
and  hallow  again  the  violated  majesty  of  broken  law. 
Thus  maintained,  the  sense  of  law  cannot  perish.  The 
sacred  throne  of  law  stands  naked  ever  before  the  people, 
and  remission  becomes  a  want,  under  the  same  process 
which  makes  it  possible, — possible,  too,  because  the  law, 
still  upheld  and  sanctified  in  the  conscience,  makes  it  a 
want.  Were  they  simply  assured,  instead,  of  God’s 
fatherly  benignity  and  His  readiness  to  forgive  sins  freely, 
the  assurance  would  be  virtually  a  declaration  of  impunity, 
and  a  half  century  of  time  would  suffice  to  obliterate 
even  the  sense  of  religion. 

After  thousands  of  years,  spent  under  this  regimen  of 
sacrifice,  have  wrought  into  the  Hebrew  mind,  and  in¬ 
deed  the  mind  of  the  race,  this  one  great  maxim — an 
almost  universally  accepted  maxim  of  religion — that  with¬ 
out  shedding  of  blood  there  is  no  remission,  Christ  appears 
and  closes  his  sanctified  and  sublime  life,  by  submission 
to  a  violent  death.  He  is  not  a  sacrifice  in  any  literal 
sense,  as  we  know.  There  is  no  altar  in  his  death,  no 
fire  is  kindled,  by  no  act  of  religion  or  priestly  rite  is  he 
offered  up  ;  he  is  simply  murdered  by  the  malice  of  his 
enemies.  And  yet,  in  another  view,  as  I  shall  presently 
show,  he  is  not  the  less  really  a  sacrifice.  Only  let  it 


HOW  PREPARED. 


23$ 


suffice  here  to  notice,  that  Christ  himself  called  the  atten¬ 
tion  of  his  disciples,  beforehand,  to  his  own  blood,  as  now 
to  be  shed,  and  hereafter  to  be  remembered,  as  the  blooc 
that  was  shed  for  the  remission  of  sins.  How,  for  the 
remission  of  sins,  if  there  was  no  altar,  no  form  of  sacri¬ 
fice  or  offering  ?  The  analogy,  I  answer,  is  one  remove 
farther  back,  in  that  which  rendered  even  the  sacri¬ 
fices  themselves  significant,  viz.,  that  only  some  sacred 
thing,  something  yielded  by  God,  is  sufficient  to  cover 
the  breaches  made  by  our  sin.  That  is,  nothing  else  can 
so  dignify  and  exalt  the  authority  of  God’s  government 
and  law,  as  to  remove  the  danger,  that  the  free  proclama¬ 
tion  of  forgiveness,  will  breed,  in  men,  such  a  spirit  of 
license,  that  not  even  forgiveness  will  be  wanted  or  ac¬ 
cepted. 

Thus  Christ,  we  say,  is  the  manifested  Life.  And  the 
blood  that  circulates  in  him,  according  to  the  accepted 
modes  of  thinking  under  the  ritual,  represents,  also,  that 
which  is  inmost  in  the  vitality  of  his  person.  Catching 
the  suggestion  of  Christ  concerning  his  blood,  shed  for 
men,  and  learning,  after  his  death,  to  conceive  more 
adequately  the  nature  of  his  divine  person,  the  disciples 
begin  also  to  see  that  God  has  yielded,  in  his  death,  some¬ 
thing  more  intensely  sacred  than  they  had  conceived. 
Nay,  all  the  most  sacred  things  they  have  ever  known  on 
earth,  even  the  blood  of  the  altar  itself,  is  rather  profane 
than  sacred,  when  compared  with  the  Incarnate  Life  ol 
Jesus.  And  this  life  they  now  look  upon  as  distilling,  in 
sacred  drops,  from  his  cross  ;  falling  into  the  desecrated 
earth,  to  permeate  and  vitalize  both  it  and  us,  and  hallow 
again  before  God,  His  polluted  law  and  realm.  There 


236 


JUSTIFICATION, 


fore  they  now  say,  with  a  meaning  too  deep  for  their 
words,  or  for  any  other  words — “  Neither  by  the  blood 
of  goats  and  calves,  but  by  his  own  blood  he  entered  in 
once  into  the  holy  place,  having  obtained  eternal  re¬ 
demption  for  us.” 

Looking,  now,  at  the  death  of  Christ  in  this  manner, 
we  are  made,  first  of  all,  to  feel,  whether  we  can  explain 
it  or  not,  that  it  has  a  marvelous  power  over  our  impres¬ 
sions,  concerning  ourselves  and  our  sins,  the  law  of  God 
and  His  character.  It  brings  an  element  of  divinity  into 
everything,  sheds  an  air  of  solemnity  and  grandeur  over 
everything.  It  is  even  more  awful  to  the  guilty  con¬ 
science  itself,  than  the  thunders  of  Sinai.  And,  then, 
secondly,  we  shall  be  able  also,  I  think,  to  see  that  the 
whole  effect,  contemplated  under  the  laws  of  art,  is  pro¬ 
duced  by  the  fact  that  the  Life,  thrice  sacred,  so  dimly 
shadowed  before  in  the  victims  of  the  altar,  is  here 
yielded,  as  a  contribution  from  God,  to  the  pacification 
and  reconsecration  of  Ilis  realm.  The  effect  depends,  not 
on  any  real  altar  ceremony  in  his  death,  but  it  depends, 
artistically  speaking,  on  the  expressive  power  of  the  fact 
that  the  Incarnate  Word,  appearing  in  humanity,  and 
having  a  ministry  for  the  reconciliation  of  men  to  God, 
even  goes  to  such  a  pitch  of  devotion,  as  to  yield  up  his 
life  to  it,  and  allow  the  blood  of  his  Mysterious  Person  to 
redden  our  polluted  earth  ! 

I  have  dwelt  more  at  large  on  this  particulai  feature  of 
the  work  of  Christ,  because  it  is  here  that  most  of  our 
disagreements  and  difficulties  have  their  spring.  My 
doctrine  is  summarily  this  ;  that,  excluding  all  thoughts  oi 
a  penal  quality  in  the  life  and  death  of  Christ,  or  of  any 


HOW  PREPARED. 


237 


divine  abhorrence  to  sin,  exhibited  by  sufferings  laid  upon 
his  person  ;  also,  dismissing,  as  an  assumption  too  high 
ior  us,  the  opinion  that  the  death  of  Christ  is  designed 
for  some  governmental  effect  on  the  moral  empire  of 
God  in  other  worlds, — excluding  points  like  these,  and 
regarding  everything  done  by  him  as  done  for  expression 
before  us,  and  thus  for  effect  in  us,  he  does  produce  an 
impression  in  our  minds  of  the  essential  sanctity  of  God’s 
law  &nd  character,  which  it  was  needful  to  produce,  and 
without  which  any  proclamation  of  pardon  would  be 
dangerous,  any  attempt  to  subdue  and  reconcile  us  to 
God,  ineffectual.  Meantime,  it  may  comfort  some  to  add, 
that  he  does  by  implication ,  or  inferentially,  express  in  all 
that  he  does  the  profoundest  abhorrence  to  sin  ;  for,  if  he 
will  endure  so  much  to  resanctify  his  law  and  renew  us 
in  the  spirit  of  it,  how  intensely  signified  is  the  abhorrence 
of  his  nature  to  the  transgression  of  his  law — more 
intensely  than  it  would  be  by  the  punishment  even 
of  us  all. 

How  very  exactly  these  representations  correspond 
with  the  language  of  Paul,  in  what  may  well  be  called  his 
standard  text,  will  readily  appear.  According  to  the 
view  I  have  given,  whatever  power  is  exerted  here 
vicariously  as  a  ground  of  forgiveness,  is  seen  to  be  in 
the  nature  of  manifestation,  or  expression,  as  represented 
by  him.  ‘  The  righteousness  of  God,  without  the  law,  is 
manifested He  does  not  say,  you  will  observe,  that  the 
righteousness  of  God  is  satisfied,  or  vindictively  main¬ 
tained,  but  simply  that  it  is  manifested.  Then,  four 
verses  after,  he  amplifies  the  same  idea — “whom  God  hath 
set  forth  [made  conspicuous  in  the  flesh]  to  be  a  propiti- 


238 


THE  DOUBLE  ADMINISTRATION 


ation  [propitiatory,  or  mercy  seat — made  so,  not  by  stand- 
ing  in  any  penal  attitude  under  God,  but]  by  faith  in  his 
blood  [so  that,  believing  in  him  as  the  Sacred  Life  yielded 
for  us,  we  may  come  into  peace]  to  declare  [si?  evdsigiv, 
more  literally  for  the  demonstration,  expression,  or  pub¬ 
lic  show  of]  his  righteousness,  for  the  remission  of  sins 
that  are  past,  [not  on  adequate  repayment  of  their 
penalty,  in  sufferings  borne  by  another,  but]  through  the 
forbearance  of  God.  To  declare  [demonstrate  or  ex¬ 
press]  his  righteousness  [not  hereafter,  not  before  un¬ 
known,  unimagined  worlds  in  his  moral  empire,  but]  at 
this  time  [now  and  before  us]  that  he  might  be  just 
[righteous — that  is,  might  stand  before  us  in  the  exact¬ 
ness  of  his  integrity]  and  the  justifier  of  him  that  believ- 
eth  in  Jesus/’  [acquitting  and  accepting,  in  peace,  all  who 
forsake  their  sins,  in  a  way  of  dependence  on  his  gracious 
interposition.] 

But  there  is  yet  one  other  feature  of  the  life  and  death 
of  Christ,  considered  as  related  to  our  reconciliation  to 
God,  which  must  be  distinctly  considered — I  mean  the 
subduing  power  it  had,  in  virtue  of  what  is  expressed  in 
it,  over  the  human  will.  I  have  spoken  of  ideas,  incen¬ 
tives,  aids  to  liberty,  justification,  all  provided  in  the  in¬ 
carnate  life  and  death  of  Christ,  but  we  do  not  really 
seem  to  ascend  to  the  true  grandeur  of  the  Christian 
scheme,  till  we  see  the  divine  government  prevailing 
and  finally  establishing  itself  in  the  willing  obedience  of 
souls,  by  an  act  of  submission. 

The  first  stage  of  government  is  the  stage  of  law. 
But  law,  taken  by  itself,  can  establish  nothing.  There  is 


OF  LAW  ANI)  GRACE. 


230 


an  a  priori  necessity,  and,  of  course,  a  historic  certainty, 
that  the  training  of  an  empire  of  free  beings,  and  the 
final  and  complete  union  of  their  will  to  God,  will  require 
a  double  administration,  or  a  change  of  administration, 
such  as  we  find  exhibited  in  the  scriptures, — law  and 
grace  ;  the  letter  that  killeth  and  the  spirit  that  giveth 
life  ;  justification  by  works,  and  justification  by  faith  ; 
bondage  and  liberty  ;  the  old  covenant  of  outward  disci¬ 
pline,  and  the  new  covenant  written  in  the  heart.  Nor 
is  it  to  be  thought  that  such  a  view  involves  the  opinion 
that  God  fails  in  one  plan,  and  is,  therefore,  obliged  to 
try  again — fails  in  severity  and  compulsion,  only  to  suc¬ 
ceed,  at  last,  by  kindness  and  love.  There  is  no  viola¬ 
tion  of  the  unity  of  reason,  as  it  is  called,  in  this  double 
administration  ;  for  to  Him  it  is  all  one  work,  equally 
necessary  in  both  the  parts,  to  the  one  final  result,  a 
freely  chosen,  but  eternally  established  obedience  in  His 
subjects. 

Under  the  first  stage,  that  of  commandment,  the  soul 
makes  her  acquaintance  with  obligation,  comes  at  the 
terms,  so  to  speak,  of  her  existence,  lays  her  hands  upon 
the  iron  fences  of  law  that  stiffen  round  her.  Will  she 
keep  within  her  inclosures  ?  If  we  speak  of  a  naked  possi¬ 
bility,  she  doubtless  may.  But  it  will  be  wonderful  if  she 
does  not  sometime  yield  to  the  instigation  of  her  curious 
nature,  and  try  the  bad  experience  of  evil.  Or  if  she 
does  not,  if  she  stays  within  her  iron  inclosuie,  only  be¬ 
cause  it  is  iron,  she  would  seem  to  be  governed  in  the  good 
she  follows,  by  constraint ;  which  can  hardly  be  regarded 
as  a  state  of  perfected  virtue — it  is  a  prudential  and  even 
cringing  virtue,  more  than  a  virtue  of  liberty. 


240 


SIN  FINALLY  VANQUISHED 


Accordingly,  we  look  for  a  lapse,  under  this  first  disci¬ 
pline  of  law.  Feeling  its  bars,  as  the  bars  of  a  cage, 
about  her,  the  soul  begins  to  chafe  against  them,  and  sc 
she  learns  the  law — first,  by  attrition  against  it,  and  then 
by  bondage  under  it.  This  is  her  fall.  Having  come  to  this, 
law  by  itself  can  do  no  more.  The  cage  cannot  reconcile 
the  prisoner.  Indeed,  the  law,  taken  as  an  appeal  urged 
home  only  by  penalties,  becomes  even  a  hindrance  to  his 
recovery.  For  it  is  the  very  misery  and  death  of  sin 
that  it  enthrones  self  interest,  and  makes  the  man  a  cen¬ 
tre  to  himself.  And,  therefore,  mere  law,  goading  him 
still  by  appeals  to  self  interest,  only  holds  him  to  that 
which  is  the  essential  bondage  and  mischief  of  his  condi¬ 
tion.  To  renovate  him  now  in  good,  requires  a  new 
motivity,  one  that  will  subdue  him  to  love,  and  unite  him 
to  the  good  as  good,  not  as  profitable — to  God’s  own 
beauty,  truth,  loveliness,  and  glory.  To  be  balked  in  his 
self-seeking,  to  be  shown  that  loss  only  and  death  are  in 
the  way  that  he  pursues  for  profit,  is  not  evil,  it  is  means 
to  an  end,  because  it  stops  him,  moves  him  to  reflection. 
But  there  needs,  just  here,  to  be  a  captivating,  or  subdu¬ 
ing  power  displayed,  one  that  shall  break  his  will,  take 
him  away  from  his  self-seeking,  engage  his  love,  and 
regenerate  the  liberty  of  his  fallen  affections. 

Hence  there  needs  to  be  a  change  of  administration. 
He  needs,  now,  to  be  approached  in  a  different  manner 
Fighting  out  the  war  with  him,  by  terms  of  force  and 
penalty,  can  do  nothing  for  his  restoration.  What,  then, 
if  the  king,  not  renouncing  his  throne,  nor  silencing  hig 
legal  thunders,  should,  in  some  mysterious  way,  come 
into  the  flesh  and  make  his  approach  to  the  repugnant 


BY  THE  SUBMISSION  OF  JESUS.  241 


and  chafing  spirit  of  transgression,  through  personal 
feeling,  on  a  level,  even,  of  patience  with  wrong  itself.  Let 
him  steal  upon  the  alienated  man,  by  a  life  that  is  parallel 
with  his  own — a  life  that  is  spent  between  a  manger  at  the 
beginning  and  a  cross  at  the  end.  Let  him  fall  into  the 
truest  affinity  with  the  lowest  forms  of  humanity, 
entering  into  the  feeling  of  all  through  what  is  lowest  and 
most  sorrowful  in  their  lot — their  wants,  losses,  and 
bodily  and  mental  diseases — raining  no  fires  of  penalty 
on  the  head  of  their  sin,  but  softening  its  dismal  pains 
and  healing  its  sorrows. 

May  I,  without  defect  of  reverence,  express  the  deeper 
truth,  that  which  is  the  appalling  mystery  of  God  in 
Christ  Jesus — mystery,  yet  philosophy,  of  this  divinest 
work  of  God,  called  redemption — the  King  Himself  here 
takes  the  attitude  of  submission  to  evil.  Requiring  of 
us  to  vanquish  wrong  by  a  patient  submission  thereto, 
he  does  it,  not  as  duty  or  wisdom  only  for  us,  but  because 
it  is  a  first  law  of  power  that  a  malignant  or  bad  spirit 
will  soonest  yield  to  endurance,  and  is  least  of  all  able  to 
endure  the  meekness  of  love.  Observing  this  great  truth 
himself,  the  divine  Word  is  incarnated  in  the  form  of  a 
servant,  moving  now  upon  the  heart  of  evil  from  a  point 
below  it — attacking  sin,  not  by  penalties  only,  but  by 
submissions  rather.  The  malign  spirit  rises,  bursting 
forth  in  a  storm  of  deadly  violence  against  his  person. 
The  only  perfect  being  that  ever  lived  in  the  flesh,  he 
becomes  the  most  insulted  and  abused  being.  But  loaded 
as  he  is  with  insult,  and  dragged  out  to  die,  he  bears 
the  concentrated  venom  of  his  crucifiers  with  a  lamb’s 
patience,  makes  no  answer,  repels  no  taunt,  complaint 
21 


242 


THE  INCARNATION 


of  no  severity.  We  see  him,  in  fact,  descending  bel 
our  malignity,  that  it  may  break  itself  across  his  Divine 
Patience.  He  outreaches,  by  his  love,  the  measure  of 
our  animosities — the  wrong  will  in  us,  all  the  malignities 
of  our  devilish  passion  feel  themselves  outdone.  Evil 
falls  back  from  its  apparent  victory,  spent,  exhausted, 
conscious,  as  it  never  was  before,  of  its  impotence.  The 
submission  of  the  Word  fairly  broke  its  spirit,  and  ever 
since  that  day  has  it  been  falling  visibly  as  Lucifer  from 
heaven.  Before  this  cross,  we  feel  ourselves  weak  in 
evil.  Into  our  angry  spirit,  chafing  against  the  rule  of 
law,  there  steals  a  gentler  feeling — some  secret  centurion, 
hid  in  the  heart’s  inmost  cell,  whispers,  “  truly  this  was  the 
Son  of  God.”  And  then  embracing,  as  love,  what  we 
had  rejected  as  law,  or  commandment,  we  do,  in  fact, 
accept  all  law.  And  now  we  have  it,  not  in  constraint 
— it  is  written  in  the  heart.  The  letter  that  killeth  is 
gone,  and  the  spirit  that  giveth  life,  uniting  us  truly  and 
forever  to  God’s  own  person,  we  receive  back  in  love  all 
we  had  rejected  in  transgression,  counting  it  our  freest 
freedom  to  be  one  with  Him  forever ;  therefore  one,  not 
in  the  statutes  only  that  He  imposes,  but  in  the  princi¬ 
ples  by  which  He  rules. 

Thus  far  I  have  spoken  of  Christ,  as  related  to  the 
great  end  of  his  mission,  viz  :  the  reconciliation  of  our 
race  to  God  ;  or,  what  is  the  same,  the  moral  renovation 
of  their  character.  For  this  end  he  expresses  God  and 
thus  becomes  a  power — in  scripture  phrase,  the  power  of 
God,  and  the  wisdom  of  God.  Or,  as  the  same  writer 
declares,  in  immediate  connection  and  in  terms  yet  more 
specific — “  Christ,  who  is  made  unto  us  wisdom  and 


VIEWED  IN  ITS  OBJECTS. 


243 


righteousness  and  sanctification  and  redemption.”  Not 
righteousness  in  one  sense,  and  wisdom  and  sanctifica¬ 
tion  in  another — not  imputed  righteousness  and  real 
sanctification  ;  but  a  power  and  spring  of  all  in  our 
hearts — wisdom,  righteousness,  sanctification  and  re¬ 
demption.  In  one  word,  union  to  God,  as  the  essential 
life  of  our  being  and  character  is  restored.  And  this 
was  the  true  end  of  the  incarnation.  ! 

Accordingly,  we  are  able,  just  here,  to  conceive  more 
exactly  than  before,  the  real  import  of  the  incarnation. 
It  is  not  that  God  simply  makes  a  theophany  or  show  of 
Himself,  though  a  human  body.  Neither  is  it  that  He  is 
one  of  two  residing  in  this  human  body — a  Divine  Soul 
dwelling  with  a  human.  In  neither  case  would  He  really 
come  into  sympathy  with  our  human  feeling  at  all ;  or, 
if  at  all,  but  feebly ;  for  in  the  former,  the  mere  accident 
of  his  connection  with  a  human  body,  taken  as  a  type, 
would  signify  nothing  to  our  human  feeling,  and,  in  the 
latter,  the  human  soul,  being  distinguished  as  a  separate 
nature,  having  a  separate  consciousness  and  suffering  by 
itself  whatever  is  suffered,  the  Divine  heart  is  even  more 
remote  therein  from  any  condition  of  sympathy  with  us. 
All  such  efforts,  therefore,  at  the  interior  conception  or 
analysis  of  Christ,  are  to  be  discarded,  and  we  are  to 
accept  him  as  the  identification  of  the  divine  and  the 
human —the  Word  become  flesh.  Unquestionably  the 
whole  matter  of  the  transaction  is  mysterious,  and  will 
be.  Unquestionably  the  whole  import  of  the  transaction 
is  what  it  expresses.  And,  in  order  to  the  fullest  and 
most  vivid  power  of  the  expression  made,  we  want  no 
mock  solutions  interposed ;  but  we  want,  rather,  to 


244 


SUBJECTIVE  VIEW 


behold  the  Divine  brought  into  our  human  conditions  Oi 
sorrow  and  pain — to  accept  the  Incarnate  Word  thus,  in 
simplicity,  as  a  brother,  looking  never  beyond  what 
appears.  But  if  we  must  be  wiser,  if,  penetrating  the 
matter  of  the  transaction  just  an  inch,  we  are  pleased  to 
discover  a  God  acting  from  behind  a  human  soul,  in 
a  human  body,  we  have  still  as  much  of  mystery  left 
upon  our  hands  as  before,  and  the  eternal  Life  as  much 
more  distant  from  our  feeling,  as  we  have  more  im¬ 
pediments  and  inanities  placed  between  us. 

Besides,  what  we  want,  as  beings  alienated  from  the 
Life  of  God,  is  to  see  the  possible  union  of  the  divine 
and  the  human  signified  to  us ;  for  there  is  to  be,  and 
must  be  a  real  life-union  between  the  Spirit  of  God 
and  all  the  righteous  spirits  of  his  kingdom.  It  is  to 
be  no  mere  collection  of  good  and  well  shaped  atoms, 
but  an  organic  frame  of  Life — “  I  in  them  and  thou  in 
me,  that  they  may  be  made  perfect  in  One.”  There¬ 
fore  it  is  the  total  aim  of  Christianity  to  destroy  the 
life  of  self,  bring  us  off  from  the  self-centres  about 
which  we  revolve  in  our  sins,  and  set  us  moving  as  in 
God ; — that  is,  to  take  us  away,  at  last,  from  our  sepa¬ 
rate  contrivings  and  willings  and  the  life  of  prudence, 
and  elevate  us  into  a  life  of  perpetual  inspiration, 
whose  impulse  and  perfection  are  the  pure  inbreathing 
of  God.  Hence  the  relevancy  and  sublimity  of  the  in¬ 
carnation,  always  to  be  taken  with  simplicity  as  the  real 
union  of  the  divine  and  the  human — beyond  which  we 
have  no  further  questions  to  ask  and  nothing  to  say, 
unless  each  can  say  for  himself — Christ  liveth  in  me. 

Here  I  close  the  subjective  view  of  Christ’s  mission 


CONCLUDED. 


245 


Considered  as  a  power  moving  the  spiritual  regeneration 
and  redemption  of  man,  this  is  the  conception  we  form 
of  it.  Is  it  a  true  conception  ?  I  have  a  degree  of  con¬ 
fidence  that  it  is.  But  there  is  yet  another  question  :  is 
it  satisfactory — is  it  the  gospel  of  Christ  ?  However  it 
may  seem  to  others,  for  it  certainly  appears  to  be  a  plan 
not  wanting  in  magnificence,  I  am  still  obliged  to  confess 
that,  taken  by  itself,  it  is  not  satisfactory  to  me,  and  I 
could  not  offer  it  as  the  full  and  complete  gospel  of 
Christ. 

I  observe,  in  the  scriptures,  a  large  class  of  represent¬ 
ations,  such  as  speak  of  the  atonement  received  by 
Christ,  his  sacrifice ,  his  offering,  his  bearing  the  sins  of 
many,  the  holiest  opened  by  his  blood ,  the  curse  he  be¬ 
came,  the  wrath  he  suffered,  the  righteousness  he  pro¬ 
vided,  which  do  not  seem  to  have  their  proper,  natural 
place  and  significance  in  the  view  here  presented. 
I  recollect,  also,  that  around  these  terms  of  grace,  the 
whole  church  of  God,  with  but  a  few  limited  exceptions, 
have  hung  their  tenderest  emotions,  and  shed  their  freest 
tears  of  repentance  ;  that  by  these  the  righteous  good, 
the  saints  and  martyrs  of  the  past  ages  have  supported 
the  trial  of  their  faith  ;  that  before  these  they  have  stood, 
as  their  altar  of  peace,  and  sung  their  hymn  of  praise  to 
the  Lamb  that  was  slain  ;  and  remembering  this,  I  cannot 
convince  myself  that  they  were  wholly  mistaken,  or  that 
they  were  not  receiving  here,  in  the  living  earnest  of 
their  spirit,  something  that  belongs  to  the  profoundest 
verity  and  value  of  the  cross.  Men  do  not  live  in  this 
manner,  from  age  to  age  and  by  whole  nations,  upon  pure 
error.  Spiritual  life  is  not  fed,  thus  interminably,  upon 
21* 


246 


OBJECTIVE  VIEW, 


a  gospel  that  mocks  all  reality.  If  theii  supposed  gospel 
does  not  stand  with  reason  or  theory,  it  must  somehow 
stand  with  faith,  feeling,  and  all  that  is  inmost  in  eternal 
life.  This  brings  me  to  the — 

II.  Department  of  my  subject,  that  in  which  I  pro¬ 
posed  to  unfold  an  objective  ritual  view,  answering  to 
the  more  speculative  and  subjective  now  presented,  and 
necessary,  as  such,  to  the  full  effect  and  power  of  Christ’s 
mission. 

Few  persons  are  aware  how  intently  our  mental  in¬ 
stinct  labors  to  throw  all  its  subjects  of  thought  and 
feeling  into  objectivity.  For  we  think,  in  the  liveliest 
manner,  only  when  we  get  our  thoughts  out  of  us,  if  I 
may  so  speak,  and  survey  them  as  before  us.  Thus  we 
say  of  a  scene,  that  it  was  pitif  ul,  or  joyful,  or  delightful , 
not  because  the  scene  itself  was  really  full  of  pity,  joy,  or 
delight,  but  because  we  were  so  ourselves.  Still  we  do  not 
say  it,  but  we  give  objectivity  to  our  feeling,  passing  over 
our  pity,  joy,  delight,  into  the  scene,  and  having  it  for  our 
pleasure  to  see  the  feeling  there.  So  we  say  that  a  thing 
is  grateful  to  us,  when  we  mean  that  we  are  grateful  for 
it ;  and,  in  the  same  manner,  we  call  a  man  a  suspicious 
character,  when  we  only  mean  that  we  are  suspicious,  or 
may  well  be  suspicious  of  him.  We  even  throw  our  own 
acts  into  objectivity.  Thus  the  word  attribute  properly 
denotes  an  act  of  attributing  or  imputing  in  us,  but  we 
use  it  as  having  no  subjective  reference  whatever.  We 
even  make  our  own  thinking  processes  objective,  in  the 
same  manner,  saying,  it  occurs  to  us,  it  appears  to  us, 
when,  in  fact,  we  are  only  describing  what  transpires 


AND  ITS  GROUNDS. 


24*7 


within  us  Human  language,  indeed,  is  full  of  illustra¬ 
tions  to  the  same  effect,  showing  how  it  is  the  constant 
effort  of  our  nature  to  work  itself,  report  its  thoughts 
and  play  its  sentiments,  under  forms  of  representation 
that  are  objective. 

Accordingly,  it  will  be  found  that  all  the  religions  the 
world  has  ever  seen,  have  taken,  as  it  were  by  instinct,  an 
objective  form.  No  race  of  men,  so  far  as  I  know,  have 
ever  undertaken  to  work  their  sentiments  towards  God 
or  the  gods  artificially;  that  is,  by  a  reflective  operation, 
or  by  addressing  their  own  nature,  under  the  philosophic 
laws  of  moral  effect.  The  religion  has  been  wholly  an 
outward  transaction,  not  in  form  a  transaction  of  the 
soul.  It  has  worked  the  soul  only  in  a  manner  some¬ 
what  unconscious,  or  by  a  kind  of  silent  implication. 
Ask  the  worshipper  what  is  the  religion,  and  he  will  say, 
it  is  the  sacrifice  offered  thus  or  thus,  the  procession,  the 
vow,  the  priestly  ceremony — some  objective  pageant  or 
transaction.  He  probably  conceives  no  such  thing  as 
a  subjective  effect,  distinct  from  what  he  sees  with  his 
eyes  ;  still  there  is  such  an  effect,  and  it  is  only  in  virtue  ot 
this,  received  in  a  latent  or  unconscious  manner,  that  the 
transaction  seen  by  the  eyes  has  any  significance  to  him. 

Such,  as  we  may  see  at  a  glance,  was  the  religion  of  the 
Jewish  people.  It  stood,  not  in  subjective  exercises 
carefully  stated  and  logically  distinguished,  but  in  a  care¬ 
fully  exact  ritual  of  outward  exercise.  Their  religion, 
if  closely  studied,  will  be  found  to  consist  of  artistic 
matter  wholly  above  their  invention — a  scheme  of  ritu- 
alities  so  adjusted  as  to  work  sentiments,  states,  and 
moral  effects  in  the  worshippers,  which,  as  vet.  they 


248  JUDAI&M  EXTERNALLY  OBJECTIVE, 

were  unable  to  conceive  or  speak  of  themselves.  It  had 
a  mystic  power  wholly  transcendent,  as  regards  their  own 
understanding,  and  one  that  involved  an  insight  so  pro¬ 
found,  of  the  relation  of  form  to  sentiment,  that  God 
only  could  have  prepared  it.  Manifestly  it  was  impos¬ 
sible  for  a  people  so  little  exercised  in  reflection,  to  make 
any  thing  of  a  religion  which  consisted  in  reflecting  on 
themselves,  conceiving,  then  addressing  their  wants,  by 
intellectual  motives.  Working  thus  upon  themselves,  in 
the  manner  of  ‘  Edwards  on  the  Affections,’  what  could 
the  men  whom  Moses  led  out  of  Egypt  have  done  ? 
But  they  had  their  ‘  Edwards  on  the  Affections’  in  altars, 
unblemished  bullocks  and  lambs,  bloody  sprinklings, 
smokes  rolling  up  to  heaven,  and  solemn  feasts ;  and 
counting  these  to  be  their  religion,  beyond  which  they 
could  hardly  manage  a  religious  thought  of  any  kind, 
there  was  yet  an  artistic  power  in  their  rites,  such  that 
in  being  simply  transacted,  they  carried  impressions,  so 
efficacious  in  the  production  of  a  religious  spirit, 
that  many,  without  the  least  conception  of  religion  as  a 
subjective  experience,  were  undoubtedly  brought  into  a 
state  of  real  penitence  and  vital  union  with  God. 
Having  no  philosophy  of  the  moral  government  of  God ; 
without  any  conception  whatever  of  law,  in  the  higher 
sense,  or  of  sin,  justification,  faith,  and  spiritual  life  ;  the 
ritual  came  into  their  feeling  when  transacted,  with  a 
wisdom  they  had  not  in  their  understanding,  and  their 
soul  received  impressions  under  the  artistic  objectivities 
of  the  altar,  which,  by  reason  or  intellectual  contempla¬ 
tion,  they  were  wholly  unable  to  comprehend.  In  the 
progress  of  their  history,  they  visibly  become  more  re 


CHRISTIANITY  INTERNALLY. 


249 


flective  speaking  oftener  of  that  which  lies  in  the  state 
of  the  heart,  and  the  internal  aim  and  principle  of  the 
life.  Still  they  had  never  gone  so  far,  previous  to  the 
coming  of  Christ,  as  to  conceive  a  purely  subjective 
religion. 

Nor  is  that  any  pi  ~>per  and  true  conception  of  Chris¬ 
tianity.  Some  persons  appear  to  suppose  that  Christianity 
is  distinguished  by  the  fact  that  it  has  finally  cleared  us 
of  all  ritualities  or  objectivities,  introducing  a  purely  sub¬ 
jective  and  philosophic  or  ideal  piety.  This  they  fancy 
is  the  real  distinction  between  Judaism  and  Christianity. 
They  do  not  conceive  that  Christianity  rather  fulfills 
Judaism  than  displaces  it — that,  while  it  dismisses  the 
outward  rites  and  objectivities  of  the  old  religion,  it 
does,  in  fact,  erect  them  into  so  many  inward  objectivi¬ 
ties,  and  consecrate  them  as  the  Divine  Form  of  the 
Christian  grace  for  all  future  time.  Thus,  instead  of  a 
religion  before  the  eyes,  we  now  have  one  set  up  in  lan¬ 
guage  before  the  mind’s  eye,  one  that  is  almost  as  in¬ 
tensely  objective  as  the  other,  only  that  it  is  mentally  so, 
or  as  addressed  to  thought.  The  sacrifices  and  other 
Jewish  machineries  are  gone,  yet  they  are  all  here — in¬ 
deed  they  never  found  their  true  significance,  till  Christ 
came  and  took  them  up  into  their  higher  use,  as  vehicles 
of  his  divine  truth.  The  scheme  of  God  is  one,  not 
many.  The  positive  institutions,  rites,  historic  processes 
of  the  ante-Christian  ages  are  all  so  many  preparations 
made  by  the  transcendent  wisdon  of  God,  with  a  secret 
design  to  bring  forth,  when  it  is  wanted,  a  divine  form 
for  the  Christian  truth — which,  if  we  do  not  perceive, 
the  historic  grandeur  of  Christianity  is  well  nigh  lost. 


250 


RELIGION  AS  IN  4  R  T  . 


Then,  also,  and  for  the  same  reason,  is  the  sublime  ait 
of  Christianity  concealed  from  us.  We  do  not  conceive 
it  as  art,  but  only  as  a  didactic  power,  a  doctrine,  a  divine 
philosophy.  Whereas  a  great  part  of  its  dignity  and 
efficacy  consists  in  the  artistic  power  of  its  form  as  an 
objective  religion — a  religion  for  the  soul  and  before  it, 
so  intensely  efficient  to  operate  a  religion  in  it.  And 
this,  precisely,  is  the  defect  of  the  subjective  view  I  have 
presented.  It  offers  no  altar  Form  for  the  soul’s  worship, 
but  only  something  to  be  received  by  consideration — 
such  a  kind  of  remedy  for  sin  that,  if  we  had  it  on  hand 
always  to  act  reflectively,  and  administer  to  our  own 
moral  disease,  it  would  be  well.  But  that  is  not  the 
remedy  that  meets  our  case.  Just  as  the  sick  man  wants, 
not  an  apothecary,  but  a  physician ;  not  a  store  of  drugs 
out  of  which  he  may  choose  and  apply  for  himself,  but 
to  commit  himself,  in  trust,  to  one  who  shall  administer 
for  him,  and  watch  the  working  of  his  cure  :  so  the 
soul  that  is  under  sin  wants  to  deposit  her  being  in  an 
objective  mercy,  to  let  go  self-amendment,  to  believe,  and 
in  her  faith  to  live. 

I  shall  recur  to  this  point  hereafter,  when  I  hope  to 
make  it  appear  that,  without  this  objective  side,  Chris¬ 
tianity  would  in  some  points  even  frustrate  itself.  But, 
before  attempting  this,  it  will  be  necessary  to  go  into 
some  illustrations  that  will  show,  more  exactly,  what  is 
meant  by  the  objective  form  of  Christianity. 

Many  persons  are  not  aware  of  the  manner  in  which 
subjective  truths,  thoughts,  sentiments,  and  changes,  often 
find  objective  representations,  which,  though  wholly  un 
like  in  form,  are  yet  their  virtual  equivalents.  Thus  it 


RELIGION  AS  IN  ART. 


251 


may  be  represented,  as  a  subjective  truth,  that  every  soul 
contains  in  itself  a  perfect  memory,  one  that  garners  up 
every  thing  of  the  past,  and  will,  at  some  future  day,  be 
roused  to  report  to  us  all  the  acts  and  thoughts  of  our 
past  lives.  Now,  for  this,  we  have  a  good  objective 
equivalent,  when  it  is  represented  that  God  keeps  a  judg¬ 
ment  book,  in  which  he  records  all  our  actions.  No  two 
representations  could  be  more  unlike,  and  yet  they  are 
good  equivalents.  So  we  may  describe  the  unquiet  and 
subjectively  discomposed  state  of  a  transgressor,  as  being 
the  natural  and  proper  effect  of  his  transgression  ;  but 
he  is  very  likely,  himself,  to  represent  the  disturbance  he 
feels  objectively,  as  being  the  wrath  of  God.  And  then, 
when  he  is  restored  and  brought  into  the  peace  of  Christ, 
he  is  very  likely,  for  similar  reasons,  to  conceive  of  Christ 
as  having  conciliated  God ;  not  of  himself,  as  being 
reconciled  to  God.  I  do  not  undertake  to  say  that  sub¬ 
jective  and  objective  representations,  like  these,  are  rigid 
and  exact  equivalents  one  for  the  other — no  two  repre¬ 
sentations  of  any  kind  were  ever  exact  equivalents.  I 
only  say  that  one  form  is  a  valid  and  sufficiently  accurate 
substitute,  in  certain  uses,  for  the  other.  Both  forms 
will  have  their  advantages.  The  subjective  is  com¬ 
monly  more  philosophical  and  literal ;  the  other  often 
carries  the  true  impression,  or  thought,  only  by  implica¬ 
tion  ;  and  sometimes  the  more  powerfully,  for  the  very 
reason  that  the  person  using  it  is  wholly  unconscious 
that  any  such  impression  or  effect  is  in  him.  The  ob 
jective  representation  is  often  taken  literally,  occupying 
the  mind  with  a  form  of  supposed  truth,  which  is  not 
true,  (so  also  does  the  subjective)  but  which  envelops  a 


252 


RELIGION  AS  IN  ART. 


trutn  or  true  impression  of  the  highest  validity  and 
power. 

And  this  will  be  found  to  hold,  most  especially  of  those 
objective  forms  which  are  employed  artistically,  or  as 
elements  and  terms  of  moral  expression  or  moral  effect. 
There  is  no  doubt  that  the  Hebrew  people,  whose 
religion  was  so  intensely  objective,  held  it  in  a  manner 
of  literality  that  involved  real  misconception.  They 
saw  nothing  in  it  but  the  altars,  priests,  confessions, 
sprinklings  and  smoking  fires,  and  these  they  called  their 
alonement,  or  the  covering  of  their  sin;  as  if  there  were 
some  outward  value  in  the  things  themselves — taken 
outwardly  these  were  the  religion.  But,  meantime,  there 
was  a  power  in  these,  by  which  subjective  effects  were 
continually  transpiring  within  them,  and  the  outward 
value  of  the  rite,  which  was  a  fiction,  had  yet  an  in¬ 
ward  value  correspondent  thereto,  which  made  th« 
fiction  truthful.  There  was  a  re- acting  power,  a 
power  to  produce  reflex  impressions  in  the  rites,  by 
which  the  law  was  sanctified  ;  by  which  they  testi¬ 
fied  ana  were  made  to  feel  repentance  for  sin ;  by 
which  they  were  exercised  in  faith  to  receive  the  re¬ 
mission  of  sins.  They  had  their  religion,  as  they  thought, 
in  their  altar,  which  conciliated  God  to  them ;  and  what 
they  had,  as  they  thought,  before  their  eyes,  was  a 
religious  experience  in  their  hearts.  This,  at  least,  was 
the  plan,  though  it  was  possible  for  them  to  fail  of  the 
true  result,  as  it  is  for  us,  under  a  more  reflective  and  self- 
regulative  form  of  piety.  They  were  to  deposit  their 
soul  in  the  outward  rite,  and  there  to  let  it  rest ;  and 
then  the  outward  rite  was  relied  upon  to  be  a  power  in 


RELIGION  AS  IN  ART. 


253 


the  heart.  The  plan  was,  to  frame  a  religion  that  would 
produce  its  results  artistically ;  that  is,  immediately, 
without  reflection,  by  the  mere  liturgic  force  of  forms. 
EndDwed  with  an  artistic  power,  these  forms  were  to 
work  their  impression,  in  the  immediate,  absolute  way 
that  distinguishes  art,  and  without  the  interposition  of 
thought,  debate,  choice,  and  self-application.  Thus  the 
Jew  had,  in  effect,  a  whole  religion  present  to  thought, 
when  he  simply  looked  upon  the  blood  of  his  victim  ; 
and  yet  in  a  manner  so  transcendent,  in  one  view  so 
mystical,  that  when  we  endeavor  to  analyze  the  import  of 
the  word  blood ,  and  tell  by  what  element  or  elements  it 
becomes  thus  expressive,  we  find  it  difficult,  by  any  cir¬ 
cumlocutions  that  avoid  the  altar  and  the  sacrificial 
images,  to  say  any  thing  that  shall  exactly  represent  our 
impressions.  This  same  artistic  force  or  immediateness 
of  impression,  is  obviously  as  much  more  to  be  desired 
in  Christianity,  as  the  subjective  truths  and  powers  it 
contains  have  a  vaster  moment. 

Passing,  now,  into  the  domain  of  Christianity,  let  us 
try  an  experiment  on  the  subjective  doctrine  already  ex¬ 
hibited,  and  see  how  far  it  may  be  represented  in  objec¬ 
tive  equivalents  drawn  from  the  ancient  ritual.  Christ, 
we  have  seen,  is  a  power  for  the  moral  renovation  ol 
the  world,  and  as  such  is  measured  by  what  he  express. 
Thus  we  have  seen  that  by  his  obedience,  by  the  ex¬ 
pense  and  painstaking  of  his  suffering  life,  by  the  yielding 
up  of  his  own  sacred  person  to  die,  he  has  produced  in 
us  a  sense  of  the  eternal  sanctity  of  God’s  law  that  was 
needful  to  prevent  a  growth  of  license  or  of  indifference 
and  insensibility  to  religious  obligation,  such  as  must  be 
22 


254 


RELIGION  AS  IN  ART. 


incuired,  if  the  exactness  and  rigor  of  a  law-system 
were  wholly  dissipated,  by  offers  of  pardon  grounded  in 
mere  leniency.  The  moral  propriety,  then,  or  possibility, 
nay,  in  one  view,  the  ground  of  justification,  is  subjectively 
prepared  in  us;  viz.,  in  a  state  or  impression,  a  sense  of 
the  sacredness  of  law,  produced  in  us.  by  Christ’s  life  and 
death.  But  we  cannot  think  of  it  in  this  artificial  way ; 
most  persons  could  make  nothing  of  it.  We  must  trans¬ 
fer  this  subjective  state  or  impression,  this  ground  of  jus¬ 
tification,  and  produce  it  outwardly,  if  possible,  in  some 
objective  form ;  as  if  it  had  some  effect  on  the  law  or  on 
God.  The  Jew  had  done  the  same  before  us,  and  we 
follow  him ;  representing  Christ  as  our  sacrifice,  sin- 
offering,  atonement,  or  sprinkling  of  blood.  Now  in 
all  these  terms,  we  represent  a  work  as  done  outwardly 
for  us,  which  is  really  done  in  us,  and  through  impres¬ 
sions  prepared  in  us,  but  the  more  adequately  and 
truly  still,  for  the  reason  that  we  have  it  in  mystic 
forms  before  us.  These  forms  are  the  objective  equiva¬ 
lents  of  our  subjective  impressions.  Indeed,  our  impres¬ 
sions  have  their  life  and  power  in  and  under  these  forms. 
Neither  let  it  be  imagined  that  we  only  happen  to  seize 
upon  these  images  of  sacrifice,  atonement,  and  blood,  be¬ 
cause  they  are  at  hand.  They  are  prepared,  as  God’s 
i  form  of  art,  for  the  representation  of  Christ  and  his 
work ;  and  if  we  refuse  to  let  him  pass  into  this  form, 
we  have  no  mold  of  thought  that  can  fitly  represent 
hirr..  And  when  he  is  thus  represented,  we  are  to 
understand  that  he  is  our  sacrifice  and  atonement,  that  by 
his  blood  we  have  remission,  not  in  any  speculative  sense, 
but  as  in  art.  We  might  as  well  think  to  come  at  the  statue 


THE  SUBJECTIVE,  TRANSLATED 


255 


01  Yrktides  speculatively,  interpreting  its  power  geo¬ 
metric  demonstrations,  instead  of  giving  our  heart  to  the 
expression  of  integrity  in  the  form,  as  to  be  scheming  and 
dogmatizing  over  these  words  atonement,  sin-offering,  sac* 
rifice,  and  bh.oJ,  which  are  the  divine  form  of  Christianity. 

It  is  only  another  aspect  of  the  same  truth,  when  Christ 
is  represented,  objectively,  as  our  righteousness.  As  the 
sacred  blood,  yielded  for  sin,  stood  in  place  of  a  right¬ 
eousness,  in  virtue  of  the  impressions  produced  by  it,  so 
also  does  Christ ;  and  as  the  offering  was  a  liturgic  exercise 
of  faith  and  penitence,  so  likewise  Christ  is  a  power  to  re¬ 
generate  character  and  restore  us  to  righteousness  of  life. 
What,  then,  shall  we  call  him,  if  not  our  righteousness  ; 
transferring,  again,  what  is  only  subjective,  in  us,  and 
beholding  it  in  its  objective  source — that  is,  in  the  form 
of  divine  art  and  expression,  by  which  it  is  wrought  ? 
This  is  the  true  attitude  of  faith ;  for  if,  in  the  utmost 
simplicity,  we  thus  believe  in  him,  if  we  take  him,  objec¬ 
tively,  as  a  stock  of  righteousness  for  us,  and  hang  our¬ 
selves  upon  him  for  supply,  we  can  scarcely  fail  to  have 
his  life  and  character  ingrafted  in  us.  We  may 
take  his  obedience  as  accruing  to  our  benefit,  we  may 
see  our  righteousness  in  him,  just  as  we  see  our  pity  in 
things  that  we  say  are  pitiful.  If  we  go  farther,  if  we 
speak  of  his  righteousness  as  imputed  to  us,  it  will  not  be 
ill  in  case  we  hold  the  representation  as  in  art,  and  not 
as  a  dialectic  or  dogmatic  statement. 

Or,  adverting  to  the  affecting  truth  that  Christ  has 
come  between  us  and  our  sins  in  his  death,  we  shall  see 
our  sins  transferred  to  him,  and  regard  him  as  loading 
himself  with  our  evils.  And  then,  as  if  we  had  put  our 


256 


INTO  THE  OBJECTIVE  VIEW, 


sins  upon  his  head,  we  shall  say  that  he  bears  our  sinst 
suffers  the  just  for  the  unjust,  is  made  a  curse  for  us. 
All  those  terms  of  vicarious  import,  that  were  generated 
under  the  ritual  sacrifice,  will  be  applied  over  to  him,  and 
we  shall  hold  him  by  our  faith,  as  the  victim  substituted 
for  our  sins.  And  so,  with  the  humblest  and  most  sub¬ 
duing  confessions,  we  shall  deposit  our  soul  tenderly  and 
gratefully  in  his  mercy. 

Or  we  may  take  the  general  doctrine  affirmed  as  the 
subjective  verity  of  the  gospel,  viz.,  that  God  is  in  Christ 
reconciling  the  world  unto  Himself.  Then  all  the  sacri¬ 
ficial  terms,  that  represent  pacification  with  God,  will 
come  into  application  at  once ;  Christ  will  now  be  called 
our  priest  answering  for  us,  our  sacrifice,  passover,  lamb, 
blood  of  sprinkling.  Here,  too,  the  word  propitiation ,  as 
used  (1  John,  ii.  2,) — a  different  word,  in  the  original,  from 
that  which  we  found  in  the  third  chapter  of  the  epistle  to 
the  Romans — will  get  its  proper  objective  sense.  Viewed 
thus  objectively,  Christ  will  be  a  propitiation,  a  piacular, 
expiatory,  vicarious  offering,  and,  embracing  him  in  this 
altar  form,  there  will  be  a  simplicity  in  our  moral  atti¬ 
tude,  such  as  will  favor  the  transforming  and  reconciling 
power  of  his  life,  as  no  attempt  to  apply  him  artificially 
and  reflectively  would  do — therefore  with  a  more  certain 
and  deeper  effect. 

Or,  if  we  are  occupied  more  especially  with  the  desire 
of  purification,  or  with  present,  actual  deliverance  from 
evil  and  the  new  purity  and  cleanness  of  our  heart  before 
God,  we  shall  speak  of  Christ  as  a  lustral  offering  that 
removes  our  defilement,  and  declare  that  the  blood  of 
Christ  cleanseth  from  all  sin.  All  things,  we  shall  say, 


BECOMES  A  VICARIOUS  RELIGION.  257 


in  our  deep  gratitude,  are  purged  with  blood,  and  without 
shedding  of  blood  there  is  no  remission 

You  perceive,  in  this  manner,  and  as  a  result  of  our 
experiment,  that  as  soon  as  we  undertake  to  throw  the 
elements  of  our  subjective  doctrine  into  an  objective 
representation,  it  passes  immediately  into  the  view 
commonly  designated  b}  the  phrase  vicarious  atonement, 
only  it  rather  becomes  a  vicarious  religion.  And  thus, 
after  all,  it  proves  itself  to  be  identical,  at  the  root,  with 
the  common  Protestant  doctrine — identical,  I  mean,  not 
in  any  rigid  and  exact  sense,  but  in  such  a  sense  that 
one  is  a  more  didactic  and  reflective,  the  other  a  more 
artistic  representation  of  the  same  subject  matter. 
There  is  no  conflict,  until  we  begin  to  assert  the  former 
as  the  only  truth  of  the  gospel,  or  to  work  up  the  latter 
by  itself,  into  a  speculative  system  of  dogma  or  of  moral 
government.  If  we  say  that  Christ  is  here,  reconciling 
men  to  God,  it  is,  for  just  that  reason,  necessary  to  have 
a  way  of  representing  that  God  is  conciliated  towards  us. 
If  we  say  that  Christ  is  a  power,  to  quicken  us  into  new¬ 
ness  of  life,  and  bring  us  out  of  the  bondage  we  are  under 
to  evil,  for  just  that  reason  do  we  need  to  speak  of  the 
remission  of  sins  obtained  by  his  blood  ;  for  the  two  seem 
to  be  only  different  forms  of  one  and  the  same  truth,  and 
are  often  run  together  in  the  scriptures — as  when  the 
blood  of  Christ,  “  who  offered  himself  without  spot  to 
God,”  is  said  “  to  purge  the  c  mscience  from  dead  works, 
to  serve  the  living  God.”  The  two  views  are  not  logically 
or  theologically  equivalent,  but  they  are  not  the  less 
really  so  on  that  account.  An  objective  religion  thal 
shall  stand  before  me,  and  be  operated  cr  operative  for 
22* 


258 


THE  OBJECTIVE  VIEW 


me,  excluding  all  subjective  reference  of  thought,  mus* 
take  such  forms,  most  obviously,  as  are  no  logical  equiva¬ 
lents  of  the  same,  considered  as  addressing  and  de¬ 
scribing  our  internal  states ;  for,  by  the  supposition,  an 
objective  artistic  power  is  substituted  for  those  methods  of 
address  which  appeal  to  consideration,  reflection,  and 
self-regulation. 

But  it  will  be  imagined,  I  suppose,  by  some,  that  the 
objective  religion,  the  view  of  vicarious  atonement,  which, 
as  we  have  seen,  may  be  generated  by  a  transfer  of  the 
speculative  doctrine,  is  only  a  rhetorical  accident — that 
the  apostles  and  evangelists  only  took  up  certain  Jewish 
figures,  made  ready  at  their  hands,  using  them  to  convey 
the  Christian  truths.  Contrary  to  this,  it  is  my  convic¬ 
tion,  and  I  shall  now  undertake  to  show,  that  God  pre¬ 
pared  such  a  result,  by  a  deliberate,  previous  arrange¬ 
ment.  It  is  the  Divine  Form  of  Christianity,  in  distinc¬ 
tion  from  all  others,  and  is,  in  that  view,  substantial  to  it, 
or  consubstantial  with  it.  It  is,  in  fact,  a  Divine  Ritual 
for  the  working  of  the  world's  mind.  It  was  not  more 
necessary,  indeed,  that  the  Life  should  find  a  body,  than 
it  is  that  the  power  Christ  deposits  in  the  world  should 
have  an  operative  vehicle.  The  Christ  must  become 
a  religion  for  the  soul  and  before  it,  therefore  a  Rate 
or  Liturgy  for  the  world’s  feeling — otherwise  Christianity 
were  incomplete,  or  imperfect. 

Let  me  offer,  now,  as  the  proper  conclusion  of  my 
argument,  a  few  considerations  that  seem  to  lead  us  into 
such  a  conviction. 

1.  It  is  obvious  that  all  the  most  earnest  Christian 


INSTITUTED  BY  GOD. 


2 


feelings  of  the  apostles  are  collected  round  this  objective 
representation — the  vicarious  sacrifice  of  Christ,  for  the 
sins  of  the  world.  They  speak  of  it,  not  casually,  or  by 
allusion,  as  an  apostle  converted  from  under  the  Roman 
religion  might  have  alluded  to  the  rites  of  Mars  or  the 
Vestals  ;  but  they  do  it  systematically,  they  live  in  it, 
their  Christian  feeling  is  measured  by  it,  and  shaped  in 
the  molds  it  offers.  And,  if  we  consider  how  Christ  their 
Lord  had  himself  been  crucified  by  the  nation,  and  in 
the  very  name  of  the  national  religion  ;  if  we  recollect 
that  they  themselves  had  renounced  the  ritual  law  ot 
Moses  ;  what  temptation  had  they  to  set  Christianity  in 
a  form  so  intensely  Jewish?  above  all,  what  to  set  their 
own  most  sacred  feelings  in  the  molds  of  an  abjured 
faith  ?  Indeed,  it  was  a  part  of  their  very  doctrine,  that 
Christ  was  liberty,  and  the  law  a  bondage — a  compost  of 
beggarly  elements.  Why,  then,  does  their  Christ  take  the  v/ 
molds  of  the  law,  unless  there  was,  after  all,  some  pro¬ 
foundly  sacred  relationship  between  the  outward  rites  of 
one  and  the  spiritual  grace  of  the  other  ? 

2.  It  is  expressly  declared,  in  the  epistle  to  the  He¬ 
brews,  and  is  tacitly  assumed  elsewhere,  that  the  old 
system  had  a  certain  relationship  to  the  contents  of  the 
new.  It  was  an  example  and  shadow  of  heavenly 
things,  a  figure  for  the  time  then  present.  Not,  as  the  old 
theologians  somewhat  childishly  conceived,  that  the  types 
of  the  Old  Testament  ritual  showed  the  saints  of  that  age, 
the  Christ  to  come  ;  but  that,  by  means  of  this  ritual, 
the  national  mind  was  impregnated  with  forms,  impres¬ 
sions,  associations,  not  derivative  from  nature,  which, 
when  the  Christian  ideas  are  born,  are  to  become  types 


200 


THE  OEJF  ;TIVE  VIEW 


or  bases  of  a  language  to  convey  them.  And,  since  the 
ideas  to  be  expressed  or  embodied,  were  themselves  out  of 
nature  ;  since  God,  also,  is  a  being  who  holds  his  ends  in 
contact,  ever,  with  His  beginnings,  and  His  beginnings 
with  His  ends,  what  forbids  the  belief  that  the  old  ritua 
was  appointed,  in  great  part,  for  a  use  so  sublime — to 
prepare  a  sacred  language  for  the  sacred  and  supernatu¬ 
ral  grace  of  Christ  ?  Which,  again,  is  rendered  very 
nearly  certain,  by  the  manner  in  which  Christ  himself 
speaks  of  the  Mosaic  ritual  and  law.  In  one  view,  he 
came  to  repeal  it  and  forever  displace  it.  In  outward 
historic  fact,  he  has  done  so,  and  yet  he  solemnly  pro¬ 
tests — “  I  come  not  to  destroy  the  law  or  the  prophets — • 
I  am  not  come  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfill.”  In  which  we 
plainly  see  that  he  regards  the  old  system  as  having,  be¬ 
hind  its  outward  formalities,  a  deep  Christian  intent. 
Therefore,  he  declares  that  he  came  to  fulfill  this  intent, 
to  bring  a  grace  to  man,  which  this  only  foreshadows, 
and  for  which  it  is  appointed  by  God  to  be  the  sacred 
Form  and  vehicle. 

3.  It  is  conclusive  to  the  same  effect,  that  Christ 
is  represented  in  terms  of  the  old  ritual,  before  his  pas¬ 
sion.  Passing  by  the  fifty-third  chapter  of  Isaiah,  and 
other  similar  prophecies,  called  Messianic,  John  the  Bap¬ 
tist  breaks  out  on  the  very  appearance  of  Jesus  : — “  Be¬ 
hold  the  Lamb  of  God  that  taketh  away  the  sins  of  the 
world  !”  Why  the  Lamb  of  God,  why  this  very  singular 
relation  to  the  sins  of  the  world  ?  If  such  figures  may 
have  been  caught  up,  after  Christ’s  death,  to  express  the 
gratitude  of  the  heart,  why  is  Christ  accosted  in  them, 
when  appearing  as  a  mere  human  stranger,  before  his 


INSTITUTED  BY  GOD. 


261 


passion,  and  even  before  his  ministry  is  begun  ?  John 
the  Evangelist,  saturated  with  the  same  impressions,  finds 
a  remarkable  coincidence,  in  the  fact  that  no  bone  of 
Christ  is  broken  on  the  cross.  Nor  is  there  any  so 
remarkable  want  of  dignity  in  noting  such  a  coincidence, 
if  it  be  set  forth  simply  as  a  finger-mark  pointing  to  the 
great  comprehensive  truth — Christ  our  Passover,  the  old 
ritual  fulfilled  in  the  offering  of  the  Life.  Still  less,  when 
we  come  to  observe  that  Christ  himself,  as  if  to  seal  the 
certainty  of  a  divinely  appointed  relationship  between  his 
sacrifice  and  the  ritual  of  the  nation,  brings  his  ministry 
to  a  close,  by  re-enacting  the  Passover  supper  as  a  Chris¬ 
tian  rite.  In  his  own  flesh  and  blood  he  finds  the  Lamb 
of  the  feast.  “  This  is  my  blood  of  the  new  testament, 
which  is  shed  for  many,  for  the  remission  of  sins.”  Re¬ 
garding  Christ,  now,  as  being  simply  a  Jew,  (which  he  is 
in  his  outward  person,)  a  pious  Jew,  just  about  to  suffer 
martyrdom,  what  could  move  him  to  declare  that  he  is  a 
lamb  offered  for  the  remission  of  the  sins  of  the  world, 
and  actually  to  insert  himself  in  the  solemn  passover  sup¬ 
per  of  his  nation,  in  place  of  the  lamb  !  We  do  not 
understand  this  very  remarkable  institute  of  Christ,  until 
we  see  that  God  has  been  planning,  from  the  first,  for  an 
objectiye  religion  ;  that  the  old  rites  exist,  in  part,  for 
this  purpose,  to  be  fulfilled,  at  last,  in  Christ,  and  become 
a  holy  ritual  of  thought  and  feeling — a  sacred  body,  of 
which  Christ  is  the  life  and  spirit.  Embodied  thus,  in 
a  form  of  divine  art,  Christ  is  set  before  mankind,  to  be  a 
religion  for  tnem,  and  become,  in  that  manner,  a  religion 
n  them. 

4.  Once  more,  there  is  a  profound  philosophic  necessity 


262 


CHRISTIANITY  INCOMPLETE 


that  a  religion,  which  is  to  be  a  power  over  mankind, 
should  have  this  objective  character.  Christianity,  set 
forth  as  a  mere  subjective,  philosophic  doctrine,  would  fail, 
just  where  all  philosophies  have  failed.  Instead  of  bring¬ 
ing  us  into  the  bosom  of  a  divine  culture,  it  would  throw 
us  on  a  work  of  mere  self-culture,  producing,  it  may  be, 
another  sect  of  Pythagoreans,  or  another  Academy  some¬ 
what  more  illustrious  than  the  old,  but  scarcely  a  religion  ; 
for  it  is  the  distinction  of  a  religion,  that  the  soul  adheres, 
by  faith,  to  being  out  of  itself,  and  lays  itself  recumbently 
on  causes  which  are  not  in  its  own  superintendence. 
Self-culture,  indeed,  has  nothing  to  do  with  religion, 
whatever  be  its  aim,  however  sacred  the  causes  we  apply 
to  ourselves,  until  we  begin  to  deposit  our  soul,  so  to 
speak,  in  God  and  in  forms  of  exercise  and  feeling  which 
are  offered  us  by  Him.  Or,  if  we  say  that  Christ  has 
undertaken  by  his  mission  to  bring  us  a  spiritual  remedy 
for  our  sin,  how  can  it  be  a  sufficient  remedy,  if  it  re¬ 
mains  for  us  to  apply  it  to  our  particular  wants  and 
diseases  ?  What  man  can  understand,  or  detect  his  own 
evils  by  reflective  action  ?  For,  just  as  his  consciousness 
cannot  hunt  his  body  through,  detecting  with  mesmeric 
insight  the  diseases  working  in  each  organ,  duct,  fibre, 
and  secretion ;  so  much  less,  by  conscious  reflection, 
can  he  read  the  interior  secrets  and  subtle  perversities  of 
his  character.  The  only  sufficient  remedy  for  a  chrom- 
cally  diseased  man,  is  one  that  is  comprehensive,  and 
will,  of  itself,  feel  out  his  complaints — some  new  clime, 
for  example,  where  the  air  itself,  more  searching  and 
subtle  than  consciousness,  will  find  out  his  diseases,  and 
apply  its  own  remedial  force  to  them  all.  So  if  we  are 


WITHOUT  THE  ALTAR  FORM. 


263 


left  to  apply  a  Christ  to  the  soul  reflectively,  as  a  philo¬ 
sophic  cause,  or  remedy,  we  shall  accomplish  little,  per¬ 
haps  only  nourish  a  concei ;  of  health,  which  is  worse  than 
an)  other  of  our  diseases. 

It  will  not  be  understood  that  I  propose  to  dismiss,  or 
that  I  deprecate  the  use  of  reflection  in  matters  of  reli¬ 
gion.  In  one  view,  it  is  the  great  work  of  the  Christian 
preacher  to  bring  men  to  reflection.  It  is  only  thus  that 
they  are  made  to  understand  themselves  and  the  wants 
of  their  immortal  nature.  The  sense  of  sin,  the  unrest 
of  a  mind  separate  from  God,  the  deep  hunger  of  a  soul 
denied  the  life  of  religion — none  of  these  are  consciously 
felt,  save  under  the  sober  influence  of  reflection.  Still, 
there  is  nothing  in  this  of  true  religion.  No  man  is  in  the 
Christian  state  till  he  gets  by,  and,  in  one  sense,  beyond 
reflective  action.  And  precisely  here  is  the  fundamental 
necessity  of  an  objective  form  or  forms  of  art,  in  the 
Christian  scheme.  While  a  man  is  addressing  his  own 
nature  with  means,  motives,  and  remedies,  acting  reflec¬ 
tively  on,  and,  of  course,  for  himself,  he  is  very  certainly 
held  to  that  which  he  needs  most  of  all  to  escape,  viz., 
the  hinging  of  his  life  on  himself,  and  the  interests  of  his 
own  person.  This,  in  fact,  is  the  sin  of  his  sin,  that  his 
life  revolves  about  himself,  and  does  not  centre  in  God. 
His  redemption,  his  salvation,  therefore,  is,  to  be  delivered 
of  himself ;  which  he  can  never  be,  while  tending  and 
cherishing  and  trying,  by  subjective  applications  made 
to  himself,  to  foment  new  and  better  qualities  in  his 
heart.  What  he  needs  just  here,  while  struggling  vainly 
to  lift  himself  by  his  own  shoulders,  is  the  presentation  of 
a  religion  objectively  made  out  for  him  ;  so  that,  when 


264 


OflitlSTIAN  IT  Y  1  N  C  O  M  F  L  E  T  E 


he  is  ready  to  faint,  he  may  drop  himself,  by  an  act  of  faith 
and  total  self-renunciation,  into  the  objective  grace  pro¬ 
vided,  there  to  deposit  himself  and  cease  even  to  be, 
save  in  his  Saviour.  Precisely  here  it  is  that  Christian 
liberty  begins,  and  here  is  the  joy  of  a  true  Christian  ex¬ 
perience.  It  is  going  clear  of  self  to  live  in  the  objective. 
It  is  the  passing  out  of  self-love  into  the  love  of  God  ;  or, 
what  is  the  same,  into  a  state  of  faith  and  devotion,  the 
fundamental  distinction  of  which  is  that  the  man  is  mov¬ 
ing  outward,  away  from  his  own  centre  towards  God,  to 
rest  on  God,  and  live  in  God.  I  do  not  say  here,  it  will 
be  observed,  that  no  one  can  have  a  true  Christian  expe¬ 
rience,  who  does  not  find  it  in  the  embrace  of  Christ  as  a 
sacrifice,  or  a  vicarious  religion.  I  only  affirm,  that  no 
one  ever  becomes  a  true  Christian  man,  who  does  not 
rest  himself  in  God,  or  give  himself  over  to  God,  in  objec¬ 
tive  faith  and  devotion,  somehow.  He  may  do  this, 
regarding  simply  the  essential  truth  and  goodness  of  God 
as  revealed  in  Jesus  Christ ;  he  is  only  liable  1  ere — since 
he  knows  that  God  is  thus  approaching  him,  to  move  as  a 
power  upon  his  love — to  fall  back,  or  rather  stay  upon  the 
old  hinge  of  self  and  self-devotion,  which  is  the  radical 
evil  of  his  character.  Hence,  while  he  is  softened  to 
feeling,  by  the  love  of  God  thus  expressed,  he  wants 
a  place  where  he  can  give  himself  away,  without  meeting 
any  suggestive  that  shall  carry  him  back  into  himself — 
an  altar  form  whose  art  is  so  transcendent,  so  essentially 
mystic,  that  all  art  is  concealed,  and  no  occurring  thought 
of  working  on  himself,  propels  him  backward  on  his  old 
centre.  And  here  it  is  that  the  objective  view  of  Christ 
holds  a  connection  so  profound,  with  all  that  is  freest, 


WITHOUT  THE  ALTAR  FORM. 


265 


most  unselfish  and  most  elevated  in  Christian  experience. 
There  may  be  a  Christian  experience  where  it  is  rejected, 
but  it  will  be  composed,  to  such  a  degree,  of  self-culture 
and  self-watching,  as  to  constitute  a  legal,  restricted, 
often  most  uncomfortable,  always  feeble  state  of  disciple- 
ship.  Nothing  is  more  painful  and  discouraging  than  any 
style  of  piety  in  which  the  human  predominates,  and  the 
elements  of  devotion  and  divine  inspiration  are  obscured, 
or  subordinated.  On  the  contrary,  any  experience  which 
drops  out  self,  to  be  filled,  guided,  animated  by  God,  is 
sure  to  be  happy,  free,  and  triumphant. 

It  must  also  be  noted  that  there  is  a  beautiful  agree¬ 
ment,  between  the  attitude  of  mind  induced  by  the  resting 
of  the  soul  on  an  objective  and  vicarious  mercy,  and  the 
great  truth  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  a  sanctifying  power. 
In  order  to  the  effective  working  of  God  within  us,  we 
must  not  be  always  shaping  or  molding  ourselves  by  our 
own  art  and  will.  But  we  need  to  be  wholly  pliant  tc 
the  will  of  God;  so  suspended  as  regards  all  thought  oi 
ourselves,  that  he  shall  have  us  completely  in  his  dominion, 
and  be  obstructed  by  no  preconceptions  and  mere  will- 
works  of  our  own.  And  exactly  this  is  the  state  in  which 
we  are  held,  when  we  are  hanging  upon  Christ  as  our 
altar,  resting  in  his  sacrifice,  yielding  up  our  soul  to  him 
as  one  whom  God  hath  set  forth  to  be  a  propitiation  for 
our  sin.  This  is  the  attitude  of  perfect  simplicity — an 
attitude  also  of  faith,  in  which  we  are  given  trustfully  up, 
to  be  turned  as  God  will  turn  us.  We  are  carried  off  our 
own  centre  that  God  may  fix  our  orbit  for  us  about  Him¬ 
self.  And  if  we  consider  the  infinite  love  of  God  to 
character,  how  His  spirit  waits  to  breathe  it,  as  the  air  to 
23 


2  m 


C  H  R  f  S  T  i  A  N  [  T  Y  INCOMPLETE, 


fill  every  crevice  and  pore  of  matter,  we  may  dare  to  say 
that,  if  He  could  have  the  bosoms  of  our  race  thus  open 
to  His  power,  He  would  sweep,  as  a  gale  of  life  and  love, 
through  them  all. 

It  is  also  necessary  to  say,  as  a  guard  against  miscon¬ 
ception,  that  reflection  or  reflective  action,  must  be 
biended,  more  or  less,  with  the  general  course  of  the 
Christian  life,  and  especially  with  its  earlier  stages. 
We  must  advert  to  ourselves  frequently  enough  to  know 
and  correct  ourselves.  We  must  form  ideals  and  aims 
of  life.  We  must  subject  ourselves  to  the  stern  discipline 
of  self-renunciation  and  the  cross.  Only  we  may  be  con¬ 
fident  that,  as  our  spirit  becomes  more  sanctified  and 
assimilated  to  God,  we  shall  become  more  spontaneous  in 
good,  and  have  less  need  to  be  acting  reflectively.  But, 
in  order  ever  to  become  thus  spontaneous,  we  need,  when 
we  are  least  so,  to  be  exercised  objectively,  thus  to  forget 
and  go  clear  of  ourselves  ;  otherwise  our  piety,  so  called, 
settles  into  a  mere  dressing  of  the  soul  before  her  mirror. 
It  is  millinery  substituted  for  grace.  If  the  soul,  then,  is 
ever  to  get  her  health  and  freedom  in  goodness,  she  must 
have  the  gospel,  not  as  a  doctrine  only,  but  as  a  rite 
before  her,  a  righteousness,  a  ransom,  a  sacrifice,  a  lamb 
&iain,  a  blood  offered  for  her  cleansing  before  Jehovah’s 
altar.  Then,  reclining  her  broken  heart  on  this,  calling 
it  her  religion — hers  by  faith — she  receives  a  grace 
broader  than  consciousness,  loses  herself  in  a  love  that  is 
not  imparted  in  the  molds  of  mere  self-culture,  and,  with¬ 
out  making  folly  of  Christ  by  her  own  vain  self-applica¬ 
tions,  he  is  made  un/o  her ,  wisdom,  righteousness,  sancti 
fication,  and  redemption. 


WITHOUT  THE  ALTAR  FORM. 


267 


1  might  speak,  also,  in  this  connection,  of  the  sad  figure 
that  would  be  made  by  the  rude  masses  of  the  world,  in 
applying  a  gospel  of  philosophic  causes  to  their  own 
nature  ;  for  they  hardly  know,  as  yet,  that  they  have 
a  nature.  How  manifest  is  it  that  they  want  an  altar,  set 
up  before  them,  and  if  they  cannot  quite  see  the  blood  of 
Christ  sprinkled  on  it,  they  must  have  it  as  a  Form  in 
their  souls ;  he  must  be  a  stock  of  righteousness  before 
them ;  he  must  bear  their  sins  for  them,  and  be,  in  fact, 
their  religion.  Then,  taking  him,  by  faith,  to  be  all  this 
before  and  for  them,  the  Divine  Art  hid  in  it  transforms 
their  inner  life,  in  the  immediate,  absolute  manner  of  art ; 
and  seeing  now  their  new  peace,  not  in  themselves 
where  it  is,  but  in  God,  they  rejoice  that  God  is  recon¬ 
ciled,  and  His  anger  smoothed  away. 

However,  there  is  no  such  difference  of  class,  among 
men,  that  the  most  cultivated  and  wisest  disciple  will 
not  often  need,  and  as  often  rejoice,  to  get  away  from  all 
self-handling  and  self-cherishing  cares.  To  be  rid  of  a  re¬ 
flective  and  artificial  activity,  to  fall  into  utter  simplicity, 
and  let  the  soul  repose  herself  in  a  love  and  confidence 
wholly  artless,  is  not  only  to  be  desired,  but  it  is  neces¬ 
sary,  as  I  have  said,  even  to  the  quality  of  true  goodness 
itself.  To  be  ever  lifting  ourselves  by  our  will,  to  be 
hanging  round  our  own  works,  canvassing  our  defects, 
studying  the  pathology  of  our  own  evils,  were  enough,  of 
itself,  to  drive  one  mad.  The  mind  becomes  wearied  and 
lost  in  its  own  mazes,  discouraged  and  crushed  bv  its 
frequent  defeats,  and  virtue  itself,  being  only  a  con¬ 
scious  tug  of  exertion,  takes  a  look  as  unbeautiful  as  the 
life  is  unhappy.  Therefore  we  need,  all  alike,  some  ob- 


268 


C  C  MPREHENSIVENESS 


jective  religion ;  to  come  and  hang  ourselves  upon  the  altar 
of  sacrifice  sprinkled  by  the  blood  of  Jesus,  to  enter  into 
the  holiest  set  open  by  his  death,  to  quiet  our  soul  in  his 
peace,  clothe  it  in  his  righteousness,  and  trust  him  as  the 
Lamb  of  God  that  taketh  away  our  sin.  In  these  simple, 
unselfish,  unreflective  exercises,  we  shall  make  our  closest 
approach  to  God. 

I  have  thus  endeavored  to  set  forth,  in  as  brief  and 
condensed  a  form  as  possible,  what  may  be  called  an  out¬ 
line  view  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ.  That  which  most 
especially  distinguishes  the  view  presented,  is  the  identi¬ 
fication  accomplished,  or  attempted,  between  the  subjec¬ 
tive  and  objective,  the  speculative  and  ritual  forms  of  the 
doctrine.  At-one-ment  and  atonement  are  shown  to  be, 
not  antagonistic,  but  fellow  truths  answering  to  each 
other,  and  only  false  when  they  are  separated.  May  I 
not  regard  it,  indeed,  as  a  beautiful  evidence  of  the  cor¬ 
rectness  of  the  view  presented,  that  it  finds  a  central 
truth,  in  all  the  principal  forms  of  doctrine  that  have 
hitherto  prevailed  in  the  Christian  church  ?  Generically 
speaking,  these  forms  are  three  : — 

First,  we  have  what  may  be  called  the  Protestant 
form,  which  takes  the  ritualistic  side  of  the  gospel,  the 
objective  side,  turns  it  into  dogma  and  reasserts  it  as  a 
theoretic  or  theologic  truth.  And  then,  though  it  be  no 
longer  a  truth,  the  form  of  a  truth,  and,  so  far,  a  divine 
power  lingers  in  it.  I  say  a  divine  power,  for  this  holy 
form  of  sacrifice  is  no  child  of  human  art  or  reason,  but 
the  body  prepared  of  God  to  be  the  vehicle  of  His  love 
to  men.  But,  alas !  the  Protestant  world  have  not 


OF  THE  DOCTRINE. 


269 


been  able  to  content  themselves  in  it,  or  to  think  it  suffi¬ 
ciently  wise,  till  they  have  changed  it  into  dogma,  and 
made  it  human;  in  which  they  have  done  what  they 
could  to  set  themselves  between  God’s  wisdom  and  man’s 
want.  Still  there  are  beams  of  light  shining  by  them, 
and  some,  I  trust,  shine  through. 

Secondly,  on  the  left  of  this  Protestant  form,  we  have 

the  speculative  or  philosophic  form,  asserting  that  Christ 

only  comes  into  the  world  to  bring  men  into  union  with 

God,  to  reconcile  them  unto  God.  Under  this,  as  one  of 

its  varieties,  the  Unitarian  doctrine  is  included.  Nor  is 

there  any  doubt  that  we  declare  a  great  and  real  truth, 

when  we  say  that  the  reconciliation  of  man  to  God  is  the 

sole  object  of  Christ’s  mission.  But  this  truth  supposes 

a  power,  and  that  power  is,  in  great  part,  only  the  power 

of  an  objective  religion.  If,  then,  we  insist  on  explaining 

away,  as  mere  Judaistic  figures  having  no  value,  the 

blood,  the  sacrifice,  the  offering  of  Jesus,  Jesus  the 

curse,  the  Lord  our  righteousness,  Christ  our  passover, 

the  lamb  of  God  that  taketh  away  the  sins  of  the  world 

— if  we  pump  out  the  contents  of  these  holy  forms,  which 

God  has  offered  to  faith  and  feeling,  and  get  them  all  into 

the  molds  of  natural  language  and  reason,  then  we  are 

only  found  asserting,  in  our  wisdom,  that  Christ  has 

con  e  to  reconcile  the  world,  and  taking  away,  in  the 

same  breath,  that  which  is  itself  a  principal  vehicle  of  his 

reconciling  power.  Reason  is  not  confused  and  baffled 

here,  as  in  the  Protestant  dogma,  but  the  altar  of  self- 

renunciation  and  faith,  she  has  taken  down.  She  has 

cleared  away  the  sun  that  she  may  see  the  stars.  And, 

though  there  be  a  finer  show  of  reason  and  of  astronomic 
23* 


270  IIOW  THE  DOCTRINE 

system  in  the  stars,  and  though  some  of  them  be  lighted 
by  the  sun  itself,  there  is  yet  a  great  defect  here  of  solar 
warmth — a  defect  so  great  that  to  be  saved  by  star-light, 
is  far  less  plausible  and  easy  than  to  bask  in  the  sun  cf 
righteousness  and  live. 

Thirdly,  on  the  right  nand  of  the  Protestant  \  iew,  we 
have  the  Romish  form,  or  the  form  of  the  mass.  Here 
the  ritual,  objective  view,  is  all  in  all — nay,  somewhat 
more  than  all.  Instead  of  a  divine  ritual  for  the  mind  or 
heart,  we  go  back,  we  Judaize,  or  paganize,  whichever  it 
be  ;  we  set  an  altar  before  the  eyes,  and  there  we  offer  up 
a  Christ  daily.  We  deal  with  blood,  not  as  a  symbol  to 
faith  and  feeling,  but  as  a  real  and  miraculous  entity. 
But  here,  again,  a  light  will  sometimes  stream  by  the 
miracle,  into  the  worshipper’s  heart — genuine  light,  from 
Christ  our  peace,  and  the  lamb  that  taketh  away  our  sin. 
Reason,  meantime,  is  dead  within  him.  The  man,  most 
likely,  has  no  questions,  no  opinions,  no  conceptions  of 
character,  save  those  which  his  superstitions  yield  him. 
He  can  never  be  a  full  and  proper  Christian  man,  till  he 
knows  Christ  in  the  grand  aim  of  his  mission — Christ  as 
the  manifested  Life — and  has  some  account  to  offer  of 
the  reasons  why  he  came  into  the  world. 

Seeing  thus  how  at-one-ment  and  atonement  and  the 
mass,  all,  lie  about  the  Christian  truth,  receiving  something 
from  it  which  belongs  to  its  verity,  rejecting  much  that 
is  essential  to  its  value  and  power,  is  it  better  to  busy  our¬ 
selves  for  the  next  eighteen  centuries,  in  quarreling,  each 
for  the  particle  of  truth  he  has,  because  it  is  a  particle  , 
or,  to  come  back,  in  shame  and  sorrow,  and  receive 


IS  TO  BE  PREACHED. 


27. 


enough  of  God’s  truth  to  enlarge  our  consciousness 
universalize  our  feeling,  and  make  us  brothers  ? 

An  interesting  question  remains,  which  I  can  only 
reply  to  just  far  enough  to  save  from  misapprehension 
viz.,  how  ought  Christ  to  be  preached  ?  Not,  certainly 
as  a  theory,  nor  in  the  half  scholastic  manner  in  which 
I  have  here  exhibited  the  Christian  doctrine.  I  only 
think  it  will  add  greatly  to  the  comfort  and  true  self¬ 
understanding  of  the  preacher  in  his  work,  if  he  has,  in 
his  own  mind,  some  such  solution  as  this.  Meantime,  he 
is  to  preach  much  as  the  scriptures  themselves  speak, 
blending  the  two  views  of  Christ  together.  Sometimes 
he  will  be  more  in  one,  and  sometimes  more  in  the  other. 
Probably  the  philosophic,  or  subjective  view  may  be  ' 
allowed  to  come  into  a  somewhat  more  prevalent  use, 
among  a  cultivated,  philosophic  people,  and  in  a  philo¬ 
sophic  age  of  the  world.  But  it  must  never  exclude  and 
displace  the  sacrificial  or  ritual  view ;  for  even  the 
Christian  philosopher  himself  will  need  often  to  go  back 
to  this  holy  altar  of  feeling,  and  hang  there,  trusting 
in  Christ’s  offering  ;  there  to  rest  himself  in  the  quietness 
of  faith,  getting  away  from  his  care  and  reflection,  and 
his  tro.ublesome  self-culture,  to  be  cared  for  and  clothed 
with  a  righteousness  not  his  own. 

1  o  be  a  little  more  specific,  there  are  three  points 
which,  in  preaching  Christ,  will  claim  attention.  (1.)  In 
setting  him  forlh  as  a  sacrifice  ;  always  to  hold  in  view, 
or  offen  to  exhibit,  lines  of  contrast  between  him  and  the 
ritual  sacrifice.  It  will  be  right  to  produce  an  impression 
similar  to  that  which  is  given,  Heb.  x.  5 — 10,  a  passage 
which  sketches  three  or  four  bold  points  of  contrast 


272 


I10W  THE  DOCTRINE 


between  Christ  and  the  sacrifices,  seeming  almost  to  say 
Jiat  “  sacrifice  and  offering”  are  to  be  no  longer ;  and 
which,  yet,  concludes : — “  through  me  offering  of  the 
body  of  Jesus  once  for  all.”  First,  Christ  is  represented 
as  saying  that  a  “  body  is  prepared”  him,  because  sacri¬ 
fice  and  offering  are  wanted  no  longer ;  that  he  is  incar¬ 
nated,  in  other  words,  for  the  discontinuance  of  all  sacri¬ 
fice.  Next,  that  since  God  has  “  no  pleasure  in  sacrifices 
for  sin,”  he  comes  to  “  do  the  will  of  God,”  and  by  his 
own  obedience,  to  displace  them.  Then  that  they  are 
actually  “  taken  away,”  the  first  removed,  and  the 
second  established.  Then  that  “  by  the  which  will,” 
that  is,  by  the  obedience  of  Christ,  “  we  are  sanctified.” 
It  is  perfectly  evident,  here,  that  he  has  no  conception  of 
Christ,  as  a  literal  sacrifice,  though  he  goes  directly  on  to 
speak  of  the  obedience  of  Christ  as  testified  “  through  the 
offering  of  himself.”  (2.)  Christ  must  be  preached,  not  as 
an  ambassador  of  pardon  simply,  but  as  justification. 
The  rigor  of  God’s  integrity,  and  the  sanctity  of  his  law 
must  be  maintained.  It  is  not  Christianity,  as  I  view  if, 
to  go  forth  and  declare  that  God  is  so  good,  so  lenient, 
such  a  fatherly  being,  that  he  forgives  freely.  No  ;  God 
is  better  than  that — so  good,  so  fatherly,  that  he  will  not 
only  remit  sins,  but  will  so  maintain  the  sanctity  of  His 
law  as  to  make  us  feel  them.  The  let-go  system,  the 
overlooking,  accommodating,  smoothing  method  of  mere 
leniency,  is  a  virtual  surrender  of  all  exactness,  order, 
and  law.  The  law  is  made  void,  nothing  stands  firm. 
God  is  a  willow,  bending  to  the  breath  of  mortals.  There 
is  no  throne  left,  no  authority,  nothing  to  move  the  con¬ 
science — therefore,  really  no  goodness.  Any  doctrine  of 


IS  TO  BE  PREACHED. 


273 


pardon  without  justification,  must  of  necessity  weaken, 
at  last,  the  sense  of  religion,  and  it  is  well  if  it  does  not 
even  remove  the  conception  of  Divine  government  itself. 
(3.)  Chris4  must  never  be  preached  antinomially,  or  as  a 
substitute  for  character.  No  such  impression  is  to  be 
endured.  There  must  be  no  such  jealousy  of  self-right¬ 
eousness  produced,  that  our  hearers  will  hardly  dare  to 
be  righteous  at  all.  The  very  object  for  which  Christ 
comes  into  the  world,  nay,  the  object  of  justification 
itself,  is  character,  righteousness  in  the  life.  The  inten¬ 
tion  is,  that  the  righteousness  of  the  law  itself  shall,  at 
last,  be  fulfilled  in  us  ;  that  our  robes  shall  be  washed  and 
made  white  in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb.  This  mercy  is 
mercy  because  it  ends  in  character, — character  renewed, 
purified,  sanctified,  made  white.  Therefore,  we  are  to 
say,  with  our  Master  himself, — “  Blessed — blessed  only — • 
are  ye  that  hunger  and  thirst  after  righteousness/’ 

But  the  best  of  all  directions  that  I  know  for  the 
preaching  of  Christ,  and’  one  that  supposes  everything 

right  in  the  preacher,  as  it  does  in  the  disciple,  is  to  live 

^  -  - 

in  him.  And,  when  I  speak  of  this,  I  am  almost  ashamed 
to  have  been  spelling  out,  in  syllables,  this  dull  theory, 
and  withholding  you  so  long  from  the  lively  doctrine  of 
Jesus  and  his  cross.  To  know  Christ  Jesus  and  him  only, 
to  die  with  him  in  bis  death  and  rise  in  the  likeness  of 
his  resurrection,  to  have  Christ  living  in  us,  life  within 
life,  to  have  his  pure  spirit  breathing  in  us,  to  love  with 
his  love,  to  be  consciously  and  eternally  united  to  God 
by  our  union  with  Him,  to  know  that  nothing  shall  be 
able  to  separate  us  from  the  love  of  God  in  Christ  Jesus 
our  Lord,  in  that  confidence  to  be  ready  ever  to  partake 


274 


CONCLUSION. 


joyfully  in  his  passion,  and  become  obedient,  w:th  lim 
even  unto  death — this,  I  say,  is  to  Know  how  to  preach 
Christ  unto  men.  For  it  is  not  a  rhetoric,  not  a  doctrine 
or  philosophy  ;  it  is  nothing  that  the  schools  can  teach,  oc 
the  natural  understanding  learn,  but  it  is  the  living,  life- 
giving  experience  of  Christ  himself ;  study  cleared  by 
communion,  knowledge  grounded  in  faith — this  it  s 
which  prepares  insight,  character  and  love,  and  forms  the 
true  equipment  of  an  earnest,  powerful  preacher.  Hav¬ 
ing  this,  a  man  will  preach,  not  by  words  only,  but  some¬ 
times  quite  as  effectively  by  silence.  His  very  life  will 
be  luminous,  because  there  is  a  Christ  in  it.  And  with 
such  abides  the  Lord’s  good  promise — not  in  some  exter¬ 
nal,  official,  occasional  manner,  as  some  appear  to  fancy, 
but  in  the  heart,  in  depth  of  feeling,  in  clearness  of  light, 
in  patience,  wisdom  and  power — “  Lo  I  am  with  you 
always,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world.” 

O,  how  manifest  it  is,  my  hearers,  as  we  go  over  this 
great  subject,  that  God  is  full,  and  His  grace  free,  to  us  all. 
What  infinite  pains  does  he  take,  to  bring  down  His  love 
to  us.  And  yet,  how  does  our  poor  human  under¬ 
standing  labor  and  reel  before  this  great  mystery  of  god¬ 
liness — height,  depth,  length,  breadth,  greater  all,  than 
we  can  measure !  God’s  loftiest  work,  in  fact,  that  in 
which  He  most  transcends  our  human  conceptions, 
is  the  work  in  which  he  is  engaged  to  save  us.  Creation 
is  a  mystery,  the  universe  is  a  great  deep ;  but,  O !  the 
deepest  deep,  in  all  the  abysses  of  God’s  majesty  is  here 
— in  the  work  He  does  to  unite  us  unto  Himself.  Herein 
is  love.  Herein  we  see  that  His  strongest  desire  is  to 
nave  us  come  unto  Himself,  and  be  one  with  Him  forever. 


CONCLUSION. 


275 


0,  let  us  believe  this  amazing  truth,  this  truth  so  full  of 
divinity,  that  God’s  bosom  is  indeed  open  to  us  all.  Let 
us  hear  Him  say,  “  Come  and  be  forgiven.”  “Come,  O,  ye 
darkened  and  humiliated  souls,  come  up  out  of  your  guilt, 
break  your  bondage,  lay  off  your  shame,  and  return 
to  your  Father. 


A 

DISCOURSE 

ON 

DOGMA  AND  SPIRIT; 

OR  THE 

TRUE  REVIVING  OF  RELIGION: 


DELIVERED  BEFORE 


THE  PORTER  RHETORICAL  SOCIETY, 


AT  ANDOVER,  SEPTEMBER,  1848. 


. 


DOGMA  AND  SPIRIT. 


It  is  a  hope,  cherished  by  many  of  the  most  thoughtful 
find  earnest  Christians  of  our  time,  that  God  is  preparing 
the  introduction,  at  last,  of  some  new  religious  era. 
Here  and  there,  in  distant  places  and  opposing  sects,  in 
private  individuals  and  public  bodies  of  disciples,  we  note 
the  appearance  of  a  deep  longing  felt  for  some  true  reno¬ 
vation  of  the  religious  spirit.  As  yet,  the  feeling  is 
indefinite,  as  probably  it  will  be,  till  its  ideal,  or  the  gift 
for  which  it  sighs,  begins  to  shape  itself  to  view,  under 
conditions  of  fact  and  actual  manifestation.  In  some 
cases,  expectation  seems  never  to  go  beyond  the  repro¬ 
duction  of  old  scenes,  familiarly  known  as  revivals  of 
religion,  and  the  reviving  of  revivals  is  regarded  as  the 
only  admissible,  or  highest  possible  hope  to  be  entertained. 
But,  more  generally,  there  appears  to  be  a  different  feel¬ 
ing.  A  degree  of  dissatisfaction  is  felt  with  benefits  of  a 
character  so  partial,  so  mixed  with  defect,  and  especially 
so  little  efficacious  in  producing  the  fruits  of  a  deep  and 
thoroughly  established  piety.  Hence  there  is  a  secret 
hope,  cherished  by  all  such,  that  something  may  transpire 
of  a  different  character  and  of  far  higher  moment  to  the 


280 


CHRISTIANITY  DISPLACES 


cause  of  God  in  the  earth — something  that  will  set  us  on 
a  firmer  ground  of  stability,  produce  a  more  acknow¬ 
ledged  and  visible  Christian  unity,  and  develop  a  more 
consistent,  catholic,  permanent,  free  and  living  exhibition 
of  tne  renovating  power  of  Christ  and  his  truth. 

This  is  the  subject  which  I  now  propose  to  discuss  « 
The  True  Reviving  of  Religion.  I  meet  you  here  as 
a  body  of  Christian  ministers  and  candidates  for  the 
ministry,  proposing,  not  some  theme  of  a  merely  occa¬ 
sional  interest,  but  one  that  is  dear  above  all  others, 
I  am  persuaded,  not  to  me  only,  but  to  the  heart  of  God 
Himself ;  therefore  one  which  it  is  my  pleasure  to  oeiieve 
will  be  as  much  more  welcome  to  you,  as  it  is  closer  to 
Christian  feeling  and  the  practical  reign  of  Christ  in 
the  earth. 

I  know  not  how  to  open  the  subject  proposed,  from  a 
better  point  of  view,  than  to  begin  where  Christianity 
descends  into  the  world — the  point  that  is  given  us,  for 
example,  in — 

1  John,  i.  2. — For  the  Life  was  manifested ,  and  we 
have  seen  it ,  and  hear  witness,  and  show  unto  you  that 
Eternal  Life,  which  was  with  the  Father ,  and  was  mani¬ 
fested  unto  us. 

Thus  it  was  that  Christianity  fell  into  the  world’s 
bosom  as  a  quickening  power,  as  Life  and  Spirit  from 
God.  It  came  into  a  world  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins 
to  make  it  live  again — this,  also,  by  depositing  in  it  and 
uniting  to  it,  as  a  regenerative  and  organific  power,  the 
Life  of  God.  At  tb^  time  when  it  appeared,  death  and 


THE  PHARISAIC  DOGMA. 


281 


blindness  had  enveloped  the  national  religion.  A  few 
souls,  spiritually  enlightened  by  God,  lingered  about  the 
temple,  waiting  like  Simeon  and  Anna  the  prophetess 
for  the  Lord’s  appearing.  In  the  desert  wilds  of  the 
Jordan,  and  the  caves  of  the  South,  there  were  also, 
possibly,  a  few  pious  eremites,  similarly  exercised  in  the 
things  of  the  spirit.  The  religion  of  faith,  that  which 
infuses  life,  and  brings  a  soul  into  the  light  and  freedom 
of  God,  was,  for  the  most  part,  a  lost  idea.  The  specu¬ 
lations  of  the  Sadducees  and  the  interpretations  of  the 
Pharisees  had  developed  so  much  of  human  light,  that  the 
light  of  God  in  the  soul,  was  no  longer  wanted  or  thought 
of.  Religion  had  been  fairly  interpreted  away.  Debates, 
traditions,  opinions  of  doctors  and  rescripts  of  schools,  in 
a  word,  such  an  immense  mass  had  been  accumulated  of 
what  an  apostle  calls  dogmas  (translated  “  ordinances”) 
and  also,  “commandments  and  doctrines  of  men,”  that 
there  was  no  longer  any  place  for  faith,  and  the  light  of 
faith  in  the  world.  The  law  was  held  as  letter,  and  had 
thus  no  real  power  but  to  discourage  and  kill ;  for  it  was 
the  manner  of  this  Jewish  theology  and  its  masters  or 
Rabbis,  to  practice  on  words  and  syllables,  trying  what 
wondrous  lights  of  opinion  they  could  produce  by  their 
learned  ingenuity ;  and  studied  thus,  in  the  letter,  and 
without  spiritual  illumination,  or  even  a  thought  of  it, 
Moses  and  the  prophets  had  become  so  overlaid  with 
school  wisdom,  and  the  rescripts  of  Rabbis,  that  no  true 
light  of  God  was  visible  any  longer.  Spiritual  life  was 
extinct,  and  only  a  wearisome  drill,  under  legal  rites  and 
fleshly  burdens,  remained. 

Just  here  Christ  makes  his  appearance,  denouncing 
24* 


282 


CHRISTIANITY  DISPLACES 


the  Pharisees  and  their  Rabbis,  that  they  open  not,  but 
rather  shut  the  kingdom  of  heaven  against  men.  There¬ 
fore  he  is  obliged  to  separate  himself  from  their  doctrine 
and  from  all  the  learning  of  his  day.  It  is  so  perverse, 
so  fortified  by  numbers,  by  conceit  and  the  respect 
of  the  nation,  as  to  be  even  hopeless.  Giving,  therefore, 
the  plain  testimony  of  God  against  it — “  in  vain  do  they 
worship  me,  teaching  for  doctrines  the  commandments 
of  men” — he  turns  to  the  uneducated,  humble  class  of  the 
people,  and  out  of  these  he  takes  his  apostles ;  simply 
because  they  are  able,  it  would  seem,  to  come  into  the 
knowledge  of  spiritual  things,  hindered  by  no  learned 
preconceptions  or  commandments  of  men,  and  with 
minds  ingenuously  open  to  the  spiritual  teachings  of 
God.  The  sublime  doctrine  of  the  kingdom,  which  is 
hid  from  the  wise  and  prudent,  and  which  no  school 
wisdom,  or  wisdom  of  dogma,  can  ever  apprehend,  God 
will  be  able  to  reveal  to  these  sons  of  obscurity,  these  in¬ 
genuous  “babes”  of  Galilee.  To  them,  therefore,  he  turns, 
making  it  his  first  object  to  attract  their  faith  by  his 
friendly  ministries,  and  fix  it  on  his  person.  He  gives 
them  to  understand  that  he  is  such,  and  such  the  message 
he  brings,  that  he  can  be  truly  apprehended  only  by 
faith — that,  as  the  swine  have  no  capacity  to  conceive 
the  value  of  pearls,  so  the  unbelieving  of  the  world  will 
never,  out  of  their  mere  natural  wisdom,  receive  and 
appreciate  the  Christian  truth.  He  declares  that  he 
comes  as  the  Life,  comes  to  form  a  life-connection 
between  the  world  and  God  ; — “  As  the  Father  hath  sent 
me,  and  I  live  by  the  Father,  so  he  that  eateth  me,  ever, 
he  shall  live  by  me  This  is  that  bread  that  came  dowr 


THE  PHARISAIC  DOGMA. 


283 


from  heaven — he  that  eateth  of  this  bread  shall  live  for¬ 
ever.”  And  then  he  goes  on  immediately,  while  his  dis¬ 
ciples  are  debating  his  words,  to  show  that  his  doctrine 
is  not  for  the  flesh  or  for  any  mere  speculative  wisdom  ; 
that  faith  only  can  so  far  seize  it  or  enter  into  it,  as  to 
produce  it  internally,  and  prove  its  heavenly  verity ; 
that  it  requires  a  congenial  spirit  co-existing  or  dawning 
in  the  soul  with  it,  so  that  it  may  flow  through  the  soul 
as  spirit,  nay,  as  God’s  own  Spirit,  and  not  be  tried 
dialectically  or  scientifically,  by  mere  natural  cognitions 
and  judgments — “  It  is  the  spirit  that  quickeneth,  the 
flesh  profiteth  nothing ;  the  words  that  I  speak  unto  you 
they  are  spirit  and  they  are  life.” 

This  is  the  conception  of  Christianity,  as  held  by 
Christ  himself.  And  for  this  reason  it  was,  as  he  well 
understood,  that  his  disciples  could  get  no  sufficient  ap¬ 
prehension  of  the  Christian  truth  in  his  life-time  and 
while  he  was  visibly  present  among  them.  Therefore  it 
was  expedient  that  he  should  go  away  from  before  their 
eyes,  and  a  plan  be  adjusted  for  calling  their  simple 
faith  into  exercise.  Accordingly,  they  were  to  wait  at 
Jerusalem,  after  his  departure,  for  the  descent  of  the 
Spirit  upon  them,  and  he,  taking  the  things  of  Christ  and 
shewing  them  internally,  that  is,  breathing  an  inspi¬ 
ration  of  Divine  Life  through  their  soul,  to  quicken 
them  internally  to  a  right  apprehension  of  Christ  and  his 
work,  would  bring  them  into  such  a  knowledge  of  the 
truth  of  Christ  and  the  new  scheme  of  salvation,  that 
they  would  be  ready  to  go  forth  and  preach  him  to 
mankind. 

They  did  as  he  commanded — the  result  is  known 


284 


ENTERS  TIIE  WORLD, 


Suffice  it  to  say  that  just  there,  Christianity  is  inauguiated 
as  Life  and  Spirit  in  the  world.  There  it  bursts  in  as  a 
gale  of  Life  and  a  quickening  power  from  God,  and  we  see, 
in  the  preaching  of  Peter  and  in  the  whole  scene  which 
follows,  that  a  new  conception  of  Christ  as  the  Prince  of 
Life — his  death  and  resurrection,  his  final  exaltation  and 
his  present  reigning  power — is  at  this  moment  seized 
upon.  Before  Christianity  had  been  dark  to  them,  they 
knew  not  wffiat  to  think  of  it;  now  it  is  light — they  have 
it  as  spirit  and  life  in  their  hearts.  God,  who  commanded 
the  light  to  shine  out  of  darkness,  hath  shined  in  their 
hearts,  to  give  the  light  of  the  knowledge  of  the  glory  of 
God,  in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Accordingly,  the  first  age  of  the  Church,  or  of  Chris¬ 
tianity,  which  opens  at  this  point,  is  to  be  distinguished  as 
an  age  of  life  and  intense  spiritual  vivacity.  It  is  an  age, 
not  of  dogmas  or  speculations,  but  of  gifts,  utterances,  and 
mighty  works,  and,  more  than  all  of  inspiration,  insight, 
freedom,  and  power.  Looking  back  upon  it  as  revealed 
in  the  New  Testament,  and  in  the  first  chapters  of  the 
subsequent  history,  this  one  thing  appears,  predominant 
above  all  others,  that  the  Church  is  alive — simple,  inarti¬ 
ficial,  partially  erratic,  but  always  alive.  He  that  was 
crucified  and  rose  again,  liveth  visibly  in  them — not  in 
their  heads,  but  in  their  hearts.  They  have  an  unction 
of  the  Holy  One  that  teaches  and  leads  them.  The 
preaching  is  testimony,  publication,  prophesying — not 
theology.  The  doctrine  his  no  dialectic  or  scholastic 
distribution  ;  it  is  free,  out  of  the  heart,  a  ministratior.  of 
the  Spirit.  It  is  luminous  by  a  divine  light  within  ;  it 
streams  through  a  character  congenial  to  itself,  taking  its 


AS  SPIRIT  AND  LIFE.  285 

mold,  not  from  any  discipline  of  theory  or  of  rhetoric,  but 
from  a  nature  and  working  that  God  has  visibly  con¬ 
figured  to  Himself.  The  effect  is  known  to  all.  Incredi¬ 
ble  as  it  may  seem,  it  is  yet  indisputable,  a  fact  of  history, 
that,  within  three  centuries,  the  fire  that  is  thus  kindled, 
catches  and  spreads,  till  its  light  is  seen  and  its  sanctify¬ 
ing  power  is  felt,  throughout  the  Roman  Empire. 

Many  speak  of  this  event  as  a  wonder.  In  one  view 
it  is.  But  something  like  it  will  always  appear,  when 
religion  casts  off  the  incrustations  of  dogma,  and  emerges 
into  life.  Christianity  was,  indeed,  a  new  truth,  but  in 
nothing  so  new  as  in  requiring  faith  of  its  disciples,  in¬ 
sisting  that  they  draw  their  light  from  God,  and  have  it, 
not  in  their  natural  reason,  but  in  and  through  a  charac¬ 
ter  that  is  itself  newness  of  life.  Considering  the  dead¬ 
ness  of  the  religious  element  in  his  nation  when  our 
Lord  came  into  it,  and  the  utter  imbecility  of  the  Rab¬ 
binic  theories  and  ordinances,  who  could  have  imagined 
that  a  man,  crucified  as  a  malefactor,  was  to  begin  such 
a  reviving  of  the  religious  spirit  in  the  world  that,  within 
a  few  generations,  he  will  have  the  imperial  city  of 
the  earth  under  his  power,  princes  and  principalities 
owning  his  dominion  and  laying  their  gods  at  his  feet. 
But  it  is  done,  and  something  like  it  will  always  be  done, 
when  men  are  drawn  close  enough  to  God,  to  be  sepa- 
ated  from  the  law  of  their  mere  human  opinions  and 
judgments,  and  brought  to  receive  their  light  from  God 
as  an  inspiration,  or  inten  d  realization  of  faith. 

Observe,  especially,  as  regards  these  first  centuries  of 
the  faith,  that  it  was  a  faith.  They  had  no  theology  at 
all,  in  our  modern  sense  of  the  term.  Not  even  Paul,  so 


286 


LAPSES  NEXT 


much  praised  as  the  ‘‘dialectic”  apostle,  was  anything  of  a 
system  maker,  and  I  shall  show  you,  presently,  that,  if  he 
had  any  theoretic  system,  the  first  and  fundamental 
truth  of  it  was,  that  spiritual  things  must  be  spiritually 
discerned.  Accordingly,  if  we  examine  the  history  of 
these  first  ages,  we  find  them  speaking,  in  the  utmost 
simplicity,  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost ;  but  hav¬ 
ing  still,  confessedly,  no  speculative  theory  or  dogmatic 
scheme  of  trinity.  The  word,  in  fact,  is  not  yet  invented. 
When  they  speak  of  Christ,  it  is  of  Christ  as  the  Life, — ■ 
Emanuel,  Saviour,  Redeemer,  Son  of  man  and  Son  of 
God,  crucified  and  risen,  wisdom,  righteousness,  sanctifi¬ 
cation  and  redemption.  They  had  not  begun,  as  yet,  to 
busy  themselves  in  setting  forth  the  internal  composition 
of  Christ’s  person.  They  had  no  forensic  theory  of 
justification,  made  out  in  terms  of  the  civil  law,  and 
defended  by  speculative  and  dialectic  judgments — they 
only  saw  the  law  confirmed  and  sanctified  by  Christ’s 
death,  and  a  way  thus  opened  to  peace  with  God.  They 
had  no  theory  about  regeneration,  assigning  the  parts, 
determining  the  how  much  on  one  side  and  on  the  other, 
and  settling  the  before  and  after,  as  between  God’s  work¬ 
ing  and  man’s.  They  had  the  word  of  God  in  power, 
but  not  as  yet  in  science — Christian  dogmatics  were  yet 
to  be  invented.  If  you  desire  to  see  the  form  in  which 
they  summed  up  the  Christian  truth,  you  have  it  in  what 
Is  called  the  Apostles’  Creed.  This  beautiful  compend 
was  gradually  prepared,  or  accumulated,  in  the  age  prior 
to  theology  ;  most  of  it,  probably,  in  the  time  of  the 
Apostolic  Fathers.  It  is  purely  historic,  a  simple  com¬ 
pendium  of  Christian  fact,  without  a  trace  of  what  we 


INTO  DOGMA. 


287 


sometimes  call  doctrine  ;  that  is,  nothing  is  drawn  out 
into  speculative  propositions,  or  propounded  as  a  dog¬ 
ma,  in  terms  of  science. 

Now  begins  a  change.  After  Christianity  as  spirit 
and  life,  uttered  in  words  of  faith  and  sealed  by  the  tes¬ 
timony  of  martyrs  in  every  city,  has  taken  possession  ol 
the  world,  it  finds  another  class  of  Rabbis,  whom  Christ 
never  saw,  viz.,  the  Rabbis  of  the  Greek  philosophy ;  and 
these  begin  to  try  their  hand  upon  it.  Some  of  the 
Christian  teachers  are  disciples  of  the  Greek  learning, 
and  the  scientific  instinct  of  the  Greek  schools  begins  to 
meditate  the  preparation  of  some  new  form,  for  the  Chris¬ 
tian  truth,  that  shall  finally  establish  its  sway  over  the 
world  of  thought  and  learning.  Thus  begins  theology. 
With  it,  of  course,  enters  controversy,  and  controversy 
being  wholly  out  of  the  Spirit  and  in  the  life  of  nature, 
whittles  and  splits  the  divine  truth  of  the  gospel,  and 
shapes  it  into  propositions  dialectically  nice  and  scientific, 
till,  at  last,  the  truth  of  Jesus  vanishes,  his  triumphs  are 
over,  and  his  spirit  even  begins  to  die  in  the  world. 

The  change  that  is  to  come  is  sufficiently  indicated  by 
a  comparison  of  the  Apostles’  Creed  and  the  Athanasian, 
or  the  Nicene.  Passing  from  one  to  the  other,  we  con¬ 
sciously  descend  from  a  realm  of  divine  simplicity  and 
life,  into  a  subterranean  region,  where  the  smoke  c 
human  wisdom,  hereafter  to  stifle  the  breath  of  religion, 
is  just  beginning  to  rise,  and  the  feeble  cant  of  dogma¬ 
tism  is  trying  its  first  rehearsal.  In  both,  you  hear  the 
disciple  saying,  it  is  true, — “  I  believe  — but  in  one,  he 
believes  the  grand,  living,  life-giving  history  of  Christ ; 
in  the  other,  he  believes  his  own  scientific  wisdom  com 


288 


CONSEQUENT  DISCORD 


cerning  it — his  mental  cognitions,  judgments,  and  theo¬ 
ries.  In  one,  the  faith  profes&ed  is  truly  a  faith.  In  the 
other,  it  is  only  such  faith  as  follows  sight,  or  opinion,  or 
scientific  reason.  The  process  of  descent  from  he  spirit 
into  the  flesh  is  easy,  and  goes  on  rapidly.  That  histori¬ 
cal  and  vital  Christianity,  which  Christ  presented  in  his 
life,  is  replaced,  ere  long,  by  what  some  call  a  doctrinal ; 
that  is,  by  a  Christianity  made  up  of  propositions  and 
articles.  The  teachers  think  they  are  shedding  great 
light  upon  the  new  religion,  but  we,  looking  back,  per¬ 
ceive  a  dark  age  just  there  gathering  in  upon  Christen¬ 
dom.  Dogma  has  eclipsed  the  sun.  Even  the  religion 
of  Jesus  itself  begins  to  wear  the  look  of  a  work  of  dark¬ 
ness.  It  is  as  if  the  discords  of  hell  had  broken  loose. 
Councils  are  called  against  heretics,  and  against  councils. 
Bishops  levy  arms  one  against  another.  Excommunica¬ 
tions  are  dealt  back  and  forth.  Whole  provinces  are 
deluged  with  the  blood  of  Christian  persecution.  Princes 
mingle  in  the  confusion,  as  exterminators,  or  patronizers 
of  one  or  another  dogma.  The  freedom  of  the  spirit  and 
of  faith  is  even  ruled  out  of  the  church  itself,  and  no 
disciple  is  allowed  to  have  any  light  that  comes  of  spirit¬ 
ual  discernment,  or  even  to  think  a  thought  which  trans¬ 
cends  the  dogma  of  his  time.  Finally,  as  all  bishops 
have  exalted  themselves  above  truth,  the  bishop  of  Rome 
exalts  himself  above  the  bishops,  and  assuming  thus 
the  headship  of  the  church,  the  work,  long  ago  begun,  is 
complete — the  church  becomes  a  vast  human  fabric  of 
forms,  offices,  institutions,  and  honors  ;  a  store-house  of 
subtleties  and  scholastic  opinions,  a  den  of  base  intrigues 


AND  CORRUPTION. 


289 


and  mercenary  crimes,  as  empty  of  charity  and  human¬ 
ity  as  of  Christian  truth  itself. 

Here  it  is  that  Luther  appears,  bursting  up  through  the 
incrustations  of  ages,  to  assert,  once  more,  Faith,  and 
the  rights  of  faith — -justification  and  salvation  by  faith 
in  Jesus  Christ.  A  great  reformation  and  reviving  of 
the  religious  spirit  follows,  which  is  felt  throughout 
the  Christian  world,  not  excluding  the  Roman  Catholic 
portions.  Many  supposed  and,  I  believe,  still  suppose, 
that  Luther  righted  everything — that  he  even  set  the 
church  back  into  her  original  position.  Others  have  had 
a  different  impression,  among  whom  I  may  instance  our 
own  immortal  Robinson.  In  the  ever  memorable  ad¬ 
dress  he  gave  to  the  Pilgrims,  on  their  departure  to  the 
new  world,  the  prophet  father  of  New  England  had 
grace  given  him  to  “  bewail  the  condition  of  the  reformed 
churches,  in  so  soon  having  come  to  a  period  in  religion,” 
refusing  to  go  beyond  “  the  instruments  of  their  reforma¬ 
tion.”  “  Luther  and  Calvin,”  he  said,  “  were  great  and 
shining  lights,  in  their  times,  yet  they  penetrated  not  into 
the  whole  counsel  of  God.  I  beseech  you,  be  ready  to 
receive  whatever  truth  shall  be  made  known  to  you 
from  the  written  word  of  God.”  He  was  right  in  these 
convictions.  Luther  had  made  a  good  beginning,  but 
only  a  beginning.  He  left  so  much  undone  that  the 
church  has  not  been  able  to  hold  the  vitality  he  gave  it ; 
but,  as  if  some  element  of  fatal  obstruction  were  still 
retained  in  its  bosom,  has  been  gradually  sinking  into  such 
divisions  and  infirmities,  such  deadness  to  truth  and  faith 
and  spirituality  of  life,  that  the  truest  friends  of  God,  in 

every  part  of  the  Protestant  world,  burdened  by  a 
25 


290 


THE  REFORMATION 


common  sorrow,  are  sighing,  at  this  moment,  for  some 
deeper  renovation,  some  more  thorough  reviving  of 
religion. 

Luther  left  the  church  connected  with  the  state,  sub¬ 
ject  to  the  corrupting  influence  of  courts  and  of  state 
patronage.  Here  we  have  advanced  upon  him  already, 
and  with  every  reason  to  rejoice  in  the  results.  But  the 
great  and  most  fatal  defect  of  Luther’s  reformation  was, 
that  he  left  the  reign  of  dogma  or  speculative  theology, 
untouched.  He  did  not  restore  the  ministration  of  the 
Spirit.  Opinions  were  left  to  rule  the  church,  with  just 
as  much  of  consequence  as  they  had  before.  He  delivered 
us  from  the  Pope  and  the  councils,  but  that  which  made 
both  Pope  and  councils  he  saved,  viz.,  the  authority  of 
human  opinions  and  of  mere  speculative  theology.  The 
man  of  sin  was  removed,  but  the  mystery  of  iniquity,  out 
of  which  he  was  born,  was  kept.  Opinions,  speculations, 
scholastic  and  theologic  formulas,  were  still  regarded  as 
the  lights  of  religion.  All  judgments  of  men,  as  apostate 
or  unchristian,  continued,  as  before,  to  be  determined  by 
their  opinions,  not  as  Christ  required,  by  their  fruits  or 
their  character.  Love,  mercy,  faith,  a  pure  and  holy 
life,  was  still  left  a  subordinate  thing — important,  of 
course,  but  not  the  chief  thing.  Christianity  remained 
in  the  hands  of  schools  and  doctors,  and  that  was  called 
the  faith,  here  and  there,  which,  here  or  there,  was 
leasoned  out  as  the  veritable  theologic  dogma.  Formu¬ 
las  still  reigned  over  faith,  as  the  Pope  had  done  before. 
The  natural  reason  was  the  keeper  of  God’s  supernatural 
truth.  Indeed,  we  may  say  that  Aristotle  was  the  doctor 
still  of  doctors,  and  that  Christ  was  dispensed  by  the 


A  PARTIAL  REMEDY. 


291 


Peripatetic  method.  The  unction  of  the  Holy  One  was 
virtually  subjected  still  to  the  scholastic  sentences,  and 
graduated  under  the  predicaments. 

In  short,  the  second  chapter  of  the  first  epistle  to  the 
Corinthians  was  really  not  restored,  and  has  not  been,  in 
the  true  spirit  of  it,  to  this  day.  We  manage,  indeed,  to 
say,  that  the  things  that  are  freely  given  to  us  of  God, 
in  Jesus  Christ,  are  spiritual,  and  can  only  be  spiritually 
discerned  ;  sometimes,  also,  that  we  speak,  not  in  the 
words  man’s  wisdom  teacheth,  but  which  the  Holy 
Ghost  teacheth,  comparing  spiritual  things  with  spiritual, 
— we  say  this,  because  we  have  it,  as  one  of  our  articles, 
that  what  the  scriptures  affirm,  must  be  held  by  us  ; 
but  we  do  not  really  mean  it  in  the  apostolic  sense.  On 
the  contrary,  we  judge  as  the  schools  judge,  speak  what 
the  formulas  tell  us,  and  will  not  even  tolerate  the  belief, 
hat  God  can  ever  lead  a  disciple  to  discern  what  is 
different  from  these.  We  do  not  really  understand,  as 
Paul  here  declares,  that  Christian  truth  can  be  in  our 
soul  only  as  it  is  of  it,  begotten  there  by  the  indwelling 
of  Christ,  and  the  private  rehearsal  of  the  Spirit.  We 
suppose  that  learning  and  debate  can  master  the  Chris¬ 
tian  truths,  and  handle  them  as  it  can  questions  of  gram¬ 
mar  and  archaeology.  We  do  not  put  our  theology  to 
school  to  faith,  but  our  faith  to  school  to  theology.  The 
head  is  to  be  made  wise  in  formulas,  and  then  the  head  is 
to  take  care  of  the  heart.  “  Private  judgment ”  is  the 
word.  The  natural  man  receives  the  things  of  the  spirit 
of  God,  and  he  that  is  natural,  judgeth  all  things. 

These  things  I  affirm,  not  in  a  sense  so  literal  as  to 
.mply  that  we  are  not  Christians.  Enough,  doubtless, 


292 


THE  REFORMATION 


of  divine  truth  leaks  into  our  conceptions  to  save  us,  but. 
not  enough  to  feed  the  true  apostolic  devotion  in  our 
lives.  We  really  have  not,  and  cannot  have,  the  minis¬ 
tration  of  the  Spirit  in  its  power.  Four  important  and 
most  deplorable  consequences  follow.  (1.)  Endless  di¬ 
visions,  subdivisions,  schisms,  denunciations,  simply  be¬ 
cause  we  are  living,  not  in  spiritual  insight,  not  in  our 
heart  as  united  to  Christ,  but  in  our  head  ;  that  is,  in  arti¬ 
cles  that  are  only  opinions  of  the  head.  Not  being  in 
the  ministration  of  the  Spirit,  which  is  unity,  love,  gen¬ 
tleness  and  peace,  and  would  thus  melt  us  into  a  com¬ 
mon  circle,  through  a  common  brotherhood  of  character, 
we  are  in  the  ministration  of  opinion  ;  that  is,  of  for¬ 
mulas,  schools,  and  doctors,  who  have  many  heads,  and 
of  course  can  make  nothing  but  diversity  and  division. 
(2.)  We  are  unspiritual  for  the  same  reason.  We  do 
not  expect  to  live  momentarily  under  the  immediate 
guidance  of  God.  As  we  measure  piety  by  formulas 
and  opinions,  and  put  religion  itself  under  their  keeping, 
so  we  expect,  most  of  the  time,  to  live  in  the  life  of 
nature.  We  only  expect  to  relapse,  or  fall  back  a  little 
into  the  dominion  of  the  Spirit,  on  Sundays,  and  yet  a 
little  further,  when  there  is  some  special  movement  called 
a  revival  of  religion.  I  desire  not  to  be  uncharitable, 
but  it  must  be  evident  to  all  thoughtful  observers,  that 
our  modern  piety,  considering  especially  what  works  of 
beneficence  we  have  on  hand,  is  marvelously  unspiritual. 
It  has  little  depth  or  unction — no  real  intimacy  with 
God  ;  but  an  air  of  lightness  and  outsideness  rather,  as 
if  it  were  wholly  of  ourselves,  not  a  life  of  God  in  the 
soul.  Even  in  the  highest  scenes  we  have  of  religious 


A  PARTIAL  REMEDY. 


293 


attention  or  excitement,  there  is  a  show  of  rawness 
and  passion,  as  if  we  had  more  of  ourselves  in  exercise 
than  we  know  how  to  manage.  Then,  again,  (3.)  this 
subjection  to  dogma  is  quite  too  visibly  a  subjection,  not 
of  ourselves  only,  but  also  of  the  Spirit  in  us.  It  is  mar¬ 
velous,  that  in  the  highest  tides  of  spiritual  exercise 
we  know,  our  demonstrations  are  molded  still  so  exactly 
by  our  formulas  and  those  of  our  sect.  Thus  a  Meth¬ 
odist  revival  will  go  on  visibly  in  the  method  of 
Wesley ;  a  Congregational  under  the  Cambridge,  or 
Saybrook  Platform.  In  both,  the  Spirit  will  ere  long 
give  way,  and  Wesley  and  the  Platforms  will  be  all  that 
is  left.  These  will  be  constant,  the  Spirit  occasional ; 
for  to  be  in  the  Spirit  is  not  our  law,  but  to  be  in  our 
school ;  and  it  will  be  this,  (not  the  Spirit,)  that  will  be 
accepted  always  to  teach  us  the  things  that  are  freely 
given  to  us  of  God.  Again,  (4.)  note  as  another  con 
sequence  of  mischief,  the  desolating  sweep  of  scepti 
cism,  connected  with  the  Protestant  church,  and  moving 
in  parallel  lines  with  it.  If  religion  is,  first  of  all,  a  doc¬ 
trine,  a  formula,  something  worked  out  by  the  school, 
then,  of  course,  let  the  school  work,  and  the  doctors  man¬ 
ufacture  opinions  as  industriously  as  possible.  Learning, 
logic,  ingenuity,  audacity,  here  is  a  field  for  all.  Hence 
rationalism,  filling  the  sky  of  Germany  with  darkness, 
and  hiding  the  sun  Luther  once  looked  upon,  so  that  it 
can  scarcely  be  seen  longer.  And  as  the  same  causes 
have  the  same  effects,  so  we  are  destined  to  experience 
the  same  shade  of  obscuration  here,  unless  we  can  let 
go  the  reign  of  dogma  and  ascend  into  the  life  of  the 
Spirit.  Then  we  may  dare,  with  Christ,  to  declare  lhal 
25* 


294 


fHE  REVIVING  OF  REVIVALS 


our  pearls  are  not  for  swine,  and  since  we  have  them  in 
our  heart,  reason  can  never  rob  us  of  the  treasure. 
Natural  reason  is  impotent  against  a  Christianity  that  is 
spirit  and  life.  But,  if  the  defenders  of  the  gospel  offei 
it,  first  of  all,  as  a  book  of  articles,  it  will  not  be  strange 
if,  when  they  have  separated  the  Life,  it  is  unable  to 
live. 

I  bring  you  thus  to  the  very  point  where  we  now  are, 
and  where  Protestant  Christendom  is.  And  here  I  rejoice 
to  find  a  great  many  of  our  truly  Christian  ministers  and 
brethren  questioning,  sighing,  praying  for  the  reviving 
of  revivals.  Conscious  of  the  mournfully  low  state  of 
religion,  the  growth  of  worldliness,  the  want  of  godliness, 
the  decay  of  ministerial  force,  and  the  afflicting  signs  of 
a  delicate  and  earthly  spirit  in  the  ministry — afflicted  by 
this,  as  every  Christian  heart  properly  should  be,  they  lift 
their  voices  in  the  pulpit,  on  the  platforms,  and  in  the 
religious  newspapers,  calling  upon  us  to  arise  and  seek 
unto  God  for  the  renewing  of  those  scenes  of  fervor  and 
Christian  power  which  they  remember  in  former  years. 
They  see  no  hope,  save  in  the  restoration  of  those  opera¬ 
tions  which  have  had  effect  heretofore  They  reprove 
us  for  the  delicate  or  fastidious  spirit  we  manifest.  They 
tell  us,  kindly,  that  God  will  not  do  things  according  to 
our  tastes  and  fashions,  that  we  must  have  protracted 
exercises,  and  not  scruple  to  enlist  evangelists,  and  set  on 
foot  those  religious  measures  which  the  distinguished 
operators  of  former  times  found  to  be  so  effective. 

I  accept  these  remonstrances,  with  that  respect  which 
is  due  to  the  Christian  anxieties  in  which  they  emanate, 
but  they  seem  to  propose  a  remedy  quite  too  slight  for 


INSUFFICIENT. 


295 


our  disease.  A  mere  reviving  of  revivals  does  not  reach 
our  case,  and  I  do  not  expect  that  they  ever  will  be  re¬ 
vived,  unless  it  be  with  such  modifications  of  mannei 
and  spirit  as  to  produce  a  different  class  of  manifesta¬ 
tions,  and  fill  a  different  place  in  the  practical  dispen¬ 
sations  of  religion. 

God  never  restores  an  old  thing,  or  an  old  state.  If 
he  produces  something  that  has  resemblance  to  an  old 
state,  it  will  yet  be  different.  If  he  brings  us  up,  at  last, 
out  of  dogma,  and  sect,  and  mutual  judgments  of  each 
other,  and  worldly  living,  into  the  ministration  of  the 
Spirit,  we  shall  not  be  there  as  the  apostles  and  first 
Christians  were,  but  we  shall  carry  up  all  the  wealth 
of  our  bitter  exercise  with  us.  We  shall  be  men  of  the 
nineteenth  century,  not  of  the  first — republicans,  men  of 
railroads  and  commerce,  astronomers,  chemists,  geolo¬ 
gists,  and  even  rationalizers  in  the  highest  degree ;  that 
is,  men  who  have  reason  enough  to  discover  the  insuffi¬ 
ciency  of  reason,  the  necessity  of  faith,  and  the  certainty 
that  a  soul  must  die  into  darkness  when  it  is  not  in  the 
life  and  light  of  God.  Let  us  not  expect,  then,  that  God 
will  restore  revivals  just  as  we  have  seen  them.  It  is  a 
dull  patient  that  expects  always  to  be  cured  by  the  same 
medicine. 

And  why  is  it  that  these  revivals  are  so  long  discon¬ 
tinued  ?  Have  we  not  some  evidence,  in  this  fact,  that 
their  force  is  spent  ?  Has  not  such  a  conviction  come 
upon  us,  in  spite  even  of  ourselves  ?  Did  we  not  see  them 
go  down,  by  gradations,  into  lower  forms  of  exercise,  and 
show,  both  in  the  means  devised  to  carry  them  on,  and 


296 


THE  REVIVING  OF  REVIVALS 


also  in  their  fruits,  what  we  could  look  upon  only  as  signs 
of  exhaustion  ? 

Besides,  they  manifestly  do  not  belong  to  a  really  ripe 
and  true  state  of  Christian  living,  but  rather  to  a  lower 
state,  which  we  ought  even  to  hope  may,  at  last,  be  dis¬ 
continued.  They  were  throes,  in  one  view,  of  disease ; 
just  as  God  works  a  diseased  body  into  health  by  inter- 
mittences  of  pain  or  fever.  If  the  church  were  to  abide 
in  the  Spirit,  as  it  certainly  ought,  for  the  promise  of  the 
Comforter  is  that  he  shall  abide  with  us,  still  I  suppose 
there  would  be  changing  moods  and  varieties  of  exercise, 
though  not  any  such  alternations  as  these — alternations 
between  death  and  life,  the  spirit  and  the  flesh.  I  make 
no  question  that  there  will  always  be  displayed  in  the 
church  scenes  of  variety  or  diversified  impulse,  times  of 
social  movement  and  public  exaltation,  times  of  stillness 
and  privacy,  times  when  the  word  preached  will  have  its 
effect  more  in  one  direction  or  more  in  another.  We  must 
not  require  that  the  demonstrations  made  in  religion 
shall  even  be  unexceptionable  ;  for  when  we  come  to 
that,  and  are  able  to  act  without  any  symptom  of 
disease,  it  will  be  proved  that  we  no  longer  want  medi¬ 
cation  under  any  system  of  exercise.  But  have  we  no 
right  to  complain  of  these  sharp  alternations  between 
vitality  and  utter  deadness  ?  Is  it  not  plain  that,  under 
this  kind  of  regimen,  we  are  even  instigating  disease  ? 
Are  not  the  fruits  we  realize  too  visibly  diseased  them¬ 
selves,  and  is  it  not  precisely  this  that  we  are  now  be 
wailing  ? 

What,  too,  are  we  declaring,  by  our  very  sighs,  unless 
it  be  the  fact  that  our  revivals  have  brought  us  no  such 


INSUFFICIENT. 


297 


fruits  of  character,  stability  and  spirituality,  as  we  may 
reasonably  desire  and  ought,  for  the  honor  of  the  gospel,  te 
exhibit  ?  Is  it  wrong  to  believe  that  even  these  sighs  them¬ 
selves  are  divinely  instigated,  and  that,  rightly  interpreted, 
they  are  yearnings,  produced  in  us,  after  some  better  gift 
which  God  is  preparing  to  bestow?  For  what,  possibly, 
has  he  allowed  the  long  suspension,  which  many  are  now 
deploring,  but  for  this  very  purpose — to  awaken  in  us 
higher  thoughts  and  prepare  us  for  a  new  Christian  era  ? 
What,  possibly,  is  he  now  offering,  if  only  we  are  ready 
to  receive  it,  but  a  grand  inaugural  of  the  Spirit  through¬ 
out  Christendom — an  open  day  of  life  and  love  and  spir¬ 
itual  brotherhood,  in  which  our  narrow  confines  of 
bigotry  and  prejudice  shall  be  melted  away,  and  all  the 
members  of  Christ’s  body,  holding  visibly  the  Head,  shall 
visibly  own  each  other ;  shining  in  the  light,  revealing 
the  spirit,  co-operating  in  the  works  of  Christ,  and  living 
for  the  common  object  of  establishing  his  kingdom  ? 

It  is  not  for  me  to  prophesy,  nor  do  I  pretend  to  pub¬ 
lish  the  secrets  of  God.  But  I  think  I  see,  by  signs 
which  others  may  inspect  as  freely  as  I,  that  there  is  a 
gift  waiting  for  the  church,  if  only  she  had  room  to  re¬ 
ceive  it.  I  can  also  see  what  most  visibly  we  want. 
We  want,  as  the  great  Robinson  believed,  “  more  light  to 
break  forth  from  God’s  holy  word” — not  from  the  for¬ 
mulas,  or  the  catechisms,  or  the  schools,  or  the  doctors, 
but  from  God’s  holy  word ;  and  especially  from  those 
parts  of  the  word  which  represent  the  Christian  truth 
as  spirit  and  life,  attainable  only  as  our  heart  and  spirit 
are  configured  to  it,  and  able  to  offer  it  that  sympathy 
which  is  the  first  condition  of  understanding — attainable 


298 


THE  REVIVING  OF  REVIVALS 


only  by  such  as  are  in  the  Spirit  themselves.  This  will 
bring  a  true  reviving  of  religion — not  sporadic  manifest¬ 
ations  of  the  Spirit  here  and  there,  now  in  one  village  or 
town,  now  in  another ;  not  revivals ,  possibly,  in  the 
plural,  such  as  our  friends  and  fathers  stir  us  up  to  look 
for,  apparently  not  observing  that,  in  this  plural  word, 
they  carry  the  implication  that  we  are  to  look  for  suc¬ 
cessions  here  and  there,  in  time  as  well  as  place,  and,  of 
course,  that  we  set  out  with  the  expectation  of  resting 
ourselves  by  another  relapse  into  deadness  and  sin,  when 
it  is  convenient.  No,  it  will  bring  us  what  is  more  and 
higher,  an  era  of  renovated  faith,  spreading  from  circle  to 
circle  through  the  whole  church  of  God  on  earth  ;  the 
removal  of  divisions,  the  smoothing  away  of  asperities, 
the  realization  of  love  as  a  bond  of  perfectness  in  all  the 
saints.  It  will  bring  in  such  an  era  as  many  signs  begin 
to  foretoken ;  for  it  comes  to  me  publicly,  as  relating  to 
bodies  of  Christian  ministers,  and  circles  of  believers  in 
distant  places,  that  they  are  longing  for  some  fuller  mani¬ 
festation  of  grace,  and  debating  the  possibility  of  another 
and  holier  order  of  Christian  life.  It  comes  to  me  also 
privately,  every  few  days,  that  ministers  of  God  and 
Christian  brethren,  called  to  be  saints,  having  no  concert 
but  in  God,  are  hungering  and  thirsting  after  righteousness 
in  a  degree  that  is  new  to  themselves,  daring  to  hope  and 
believe  that  they  may  be  filled,  testifying  joyfully  that 
Christ  is  a  more  complete  Saviour,  and  the  manifestation 
of  God  in  the  heart  of  faith,  a  more  intense  reality  than 
they  had  before  conceived.  Meantime,  as  we  all  know; 
a  feeling  of  fraternity  is  growing  up  silently,  in  distant 
parts  of  the  Christian  world.  Bigotry  is  tottering. 


INSUFFICIENT. 


299 


rigidity  growing  flexible,  and  Christian  hearts  are  yearn¬ 
ing,  everywhere,  after  a  day  of  universal  brotherhood 
in  Christ  Jesus.  These  are  the  signs  we  have  before  us 
It  is  in  view  of  these  that  we  are  to  form  our  expecta¬ 
tions  ;  also,  in  part,  that  we  are  to  shape  our  plans  and 
settle  our  Christian  aims.  Indeed,  it  is  even  a  great 
maxim  of  philosophy,  that,  when  we  see  men  wide 
asundei,  beginning  to  take  up  the  same  thoughts  and  fall 
into  the  same  sentiments,  and  that  without  concert  or 
communication,  we  are  generally  to  believe  that  some¬ 
thing  decisive,  in  that  direction,  is  preparing ;  for  it  is 
the  age  that  is  working  in  them,  or  the  God  rather, 
probably,  of  all  ages ;  and,  accordingly,  what  engages  sc 
many,  at  once,  is  only  the  quickening  in  them  of  that 
seed,  on  whose  stalk  the  future  is  to  blossom. 

Should  we  not,  therefore,  expect  a  gradual  appearing 
of  new  life,  which  years  only  can  prepare  ?  Shall  we 
not  even  dare  to  spread  our  Christian  confidences  by 
the  measures  of  Providence,  and,  in  this  manner,  take 
up  the  hope  that,  when  so  many  signs  and  yearnings  meet 
in  their  fulfillment,  we  may  see  a  grand  reviving  of  re¬ 
ligion,  that  shall  be  marked  by  no  village  boundaries,  no 
walls  of  sect  or  name,  but  shall  penetrate,  vivify,  and 
melt  into  brotherhood,  at  last,  all  who  love  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  on  earth  ? 

In  this  protracted  statement  I  have  set  forth  what  I 
conceive  to  be  our  position,  both  as  related  to  the  past 
and  the  future.  If,  as  I  have  intimated,  results  of  sc 
great  consequence  are  hanging  on  the  reduction  oi  dis 
placement  of  dogma,  it  becomes  my  duty,  in  the  nex 


300 


DOGMA  AND  SPIRIT 


place  to  verify  that  conviction.  And  in  order  to  this.  1 
must,  first  of  all,  endeavor  to  distinguish,  as  accurately  as 
possible,  the  true  idea  of  dogma. 

The  word  dogma  literally  means  an  opinion,  but  it  is 
almost  uniformly  understood  to  include  something  mo;e, 
viz.,  an  authoritative  force.  We  see  this  element  con¬ 
spicuous  in  the  word  dogmatize ,  and  it  belongs  historically 
to  the  word  dogma  itself.  Thus  it  was  anciently  used  to 
signify  a  decree,  as  when  Caesar  decreed  the  taxing. 
The  epistle  sent  out  to  quiet  the  churches,  by  the 
council  of  the  brethren  at  Jerusalem,  was  also  called  a 
dogma,  (Acts,  xvi.  4.)  where  the  term  is  used  in  a  milder 
sense  to  denote  a  basis  which  had  been  agreed  upon 
for  the  pacification  of  difficulties,  and  which,  it  was 
hoped,  would  be  generally  respected.  Paul  uses  the 
word  three  times  in  his  epistles,  where  it  is  translated 
“  ordinances  — for  example,  when  he  speaks  of  “  the 
law  of  commandments  contained  in  ordinances” — the 
reference  being,  in  this  and  the  other  cases,  to  that  over¬ 
growth  of  opinions,  speculations,  and  religious  rescripts, 
under  which  the  doctrine  of  Moses  had  been  hidden,  and 
in  sweeping  which  away,  Christ  brought  in,  as  we  have 
seen  already,  a  new  era  of  religious  freedom  and  power. 
When  we  speak  of  Christian  dogmatics,  or  of  dogmatic 
theology,  we  associate  the  same  idea  of  authority,  in  a 
little  milder  sense,  understanding  some  scheme  or  system 
of  religious  opinion,  propounded  as  a  guide  to  others, 
who  are  theologic  pupils  or  Christian  disciples.  ~And 
when  we  come  to  the  testing  of  Christian  character,  oi 
to  terms  of  fellowship,  then  it  will  be  seen  that  oul 


DISTINGUISHED. 


301 


dogma,  by  whatever  name  we  call  it,  is  taken  to  be  a 
fixed  rule  of  authority,  to  all  who  are  concerned. 

Two  elements,  then,  as  I  conceive,  enter  into  the  no¬ 
tion  of  dogma — first  an  opinion,  which  is  some  de¬ 
cision  of  natural  judgment,  or  some  merely  theologic 
conclusion.  Secondly,  the  propounding  or  holding  oi 
that  opinion  as  a  rule  to  the  opinions,  the  faith,  or  the 
Christian  experience,  whether  of  ourselves  or  of  others. 

It  is  also  to  be  noted,  in  regard  to  the  first  named  ele¬ 
ment,  the  opinion  that  enters  into  dogma,  that  it  holds  a 
decided  contrast  with  faith,  heart,  spirit,  and  life  ;  which 
contrast  also  belongs,  of  course,  to  dogma. 

An  opinion  is  some  result,  which  is  prepared  out 
of  the  mere  life  of  nature ;  some  perception,  cogni¬ 
tion,  or  judgment,  that  we  produced  out  of  our  natural 
activity,  as  intelligent  beings.  But  faith  carries  us 
above  nature,  into  apprehensions  that  transcend  the  reach 
of  mere  natural  judgments.  Being  that  act  in  which  a 
man  passes  off  his  own  centre,  to  rest  himself  practically 
in  God,  it  unites  the  soul  to  Him,  and  becomes,  in  that 
manner,  an  experience  of  Him.  In  one  view,  faith  is 
grounded  in  evidence,  but  it  also  creates  evidence,  by 
the  realizations  it  makes  of  spiritual  things.  Hence  it 
is  declared  to  be  the  evidence  of  things  not  seen,  the  sub¬ 
stance  or  substantiator  of  things  hoped  for.  It  is,  in  this 
way,  more  than  by  all  opinions,  that  we  are  able  to  give 
reality  to  things  invisible. 

Opinion,  too,  is  of  the  head  ;  it  is  the  knowledge  gotten 
by  thought  and  reflection.  But  there  is  also  a  knowledge 
of  God  and  Christian  truth,  which  is  of  the  heart ;  for  a 

right  sensibility  is  as  truly  perceptive  as  reason,  and 
26 


302 


DOGMA  AND  SPIRIT 


there  are  many  truths,  of  the  highest  moment,  that  can 
never  find  us,  save  as  we  offer  a  congenial  sensibility  to 
them.  What  is  loftiest  and  most  transcendent  in  the 
character  of  God.  his  purity,  goodness,  beauty,  and  gentle¬ 
ness,  can  never  be  sufficiently  apprehended  by  mere  intel¬ 
lect,  or  by  any  other  power  than  a  heart  configured  to 
these  divine  qualities.  And  the  whole  gospel  of  Christ 
is  subject,  in  a  great  degree,  to  the  same  conditions.  It 
requires  a  heart,  a  good,  right-feeling  heart,  to  receive  so 
much  of  heart  as  God  here  opens  to  us.  Indeed,  the  gos¬ 
pel  is,  in  one  view,  a  magnificent  work  of  art,  a  mani¬ 
festation  of  God  which  is  to  find  the  world,  and  move  it, 
and  change  it,  through  the  medium  of  expression. 
Hence  it  requires  for  an  inlet,  not  reason  or  logic  or  a 
scientific  power,  so  much  as  a  right  sensibility.  The 
true  and  only  sufficient  interpreter  of  it  is  an  esthetic 
talent,  viz.,  the  talent  of  love,  or  a  sensibility  exalted  and 
purified  by  love.  The  expression  is  made,  in  part,  to 
mere  natural  feeling,  such  as  is  common  to  the  race. 
Hence  it  has  a  power  to  work  on  man  at  his  lowest  point 
of  character,  and  then,  when  his  heart  is  engaged  and 
propitiated  by  the  secular  charities  of  Jesus,  it  is  to  be 
transformed,  regenerated,  carried  up  into  goodness, 
and  there  introduced  to  the  higher  revelations  and 
knowledges  of  God,  as  set  forth  in  his  Divine  Life. 
Then  it  knows  him.  Blessed  are  the  pure  in  heart  for 
they  shall  see  God.  It  is  not  by  opinion,  but  by  love 
that  we  most  truly  know  God.  If  any  man  love  God, 
He  is  known  of  him.  And  he  that  loveth  not,  knoweth 
not  God,  for  God  is  love. 

Opinion,  also,  is  dark  and  feeble  in  the  contrast  with 


DISTINGUISHED. 


303 


spirit  and  inspiration.  Christianity  is  called  “  spirit,” 
partly  because  it  can  truly  enter  us  and  be  apprehended 
by  us,  only  as  we  are  in  it  and  of  it,  and  have  its  spirit 
in  us.  The  letter  cannot  teach  it,  words  cannot  tell  us 
what  it  is.  We  can  never  find  it,  or  be  found  of  it,  till 
we  come  up  out  of  questions  and  constructions,  into  the 
living  spirit  of  Christ  himself.  It  is  also  called  ‘  spirit,’ 
in  part  and  perhaps  chiefly,  because  it  is  received  and 
receivable  only  through  some  concourse  of  God,  or  the 
Spirit  of  God.  The  human  soul  under  sin,  or  considered 
simply  as  unreligious,  is  necessarily  dark,  because  it  is 
divorced  from  God,  by  whose  inbeing  it  was  made  to 
have  its  light.  It  cannot  make  light,  by  opinions  gotten 
up  in  itself.  Revolving  God’s  idea,  systematizing  exter¬ 
nal  cognitions,  derived  from  his  works,  investigating  the 
historic  evidences  of  Christ,  his  life,  his  doctrine — busied 
in  all  such  ways,  it  is  rather  creating  darkness  than  light, 
until  it  receives  God,  as  an  inner  light,  and  knows  him 
by  that  spiritual  manifestation  within,  which  Christ 
promised. 

This  great  truth  is  continually  present  in  the  teachings 
of  Christ  and  his  apostles.  If  only  Peter  takes  up  the 
belief  that  he  is  the  Messiah,  the  Saviour  sees  a  discern¬ 
ment  in  him  which  is  not  of  the  man  himself — a  revela¬ 
tion.  “  Blessed  art  thou,  Simon  Bar-jona ;  for  flesh 
and  blood  hath  not  revealed  it  unto  thee,  but  my  Father, 
which  is  in  heaven.”  Whenever  his  doctrine  or  parable 
is  understood,  he  sees  an  inner  light  of  God  in  that  un¬ 
derstanding.  “  Thou  hast  hid  these  things  from  the  wise 
and  prudent,  and  revealed  them  unto  babes.”  In  the 
same  view,  he  promises  the  Comforter  to  his  disciples,  as 


304 


DOGMA  AND  SPIRIT 


an  abiding  teacher,  who  shall  make  what  is  now  dark  in 
respect  to  him,  as  viewed  by  their  mere  understanding, 
luminous  and  clear.  They  waited  for  him  at  Jerusalem 
according  to  their  Master’s  direction,  and  there  it  would 
seem  as  if  Christianity  first  dawned  upon  their  concep¬ 
tions.  Just  there,  we  may  say,  Christianity,  which 
opinion  could  not  reach,  comes  into  sight,  and  Christ  is 
known  as  the  Redeemer  and  Saviour  of  the  race — the 
Life  of  God  manifested  in  the  world. 

Paul  is  continually  setting  forth  Christianity,  as  a  min¬ 
istration  of  the  Spirit,  in  the  same  way.  It  is  no  judg¬ 
ment  of  the  flesh,  it  is  no  wisdom  of  this  world,  it  is  not 
the  letter,  but  it  is  spirit  and  life — Christ  dwelling  in  us. 
In  the  second  chapter  of  his  first  epistle  to  the  Corinthians, 
he  is  fuller  and  more  definite  than  elsewhere,  asserting 
the  great,  and,  as  it  seems  to  me,  universal  truth,  that  in 
order  to  be  known  by  us,  God  must  live  in  us.  He 
does  not  mean  to  say  that,  up  to  a  certain  time,  we  are 
incapable  of  knowing  God,  or  understanding  Christ,  and 
that  then,  being  converted  or  having  a  new  function 
communicated,  we  are  ever  after  able  to  understand  him. 
He  only  means  to  say  that  we  never  do,  in  fact,  receive 
the  true  sense  of  Christianity,  save  as  we  are  spiritually 
illuminated,  and  in  the  degree  of  that  illumination.  Our 
theologians  would  have  his  true  meaning,  if  they  took 
his  words  as  intended  for  themselves  ;  to  show  them  that 
they  will  have  the  knowledge  of  Christ,  not  in  debates 
alone,  not  in  articles,  systems,  and  opinions,  such  as  they 
get  up  in  the  life  of  nature,  but  by  the  constant  indwelling, 
rather,  and  teaching  of  God’s  own  Spirit.  Would  to 
God  he  might  be  thus  received  !  and  that  we  might  al1 


DISTINGUISHED. 


305 


be  able  to  say,  with  Paul,  “  Now  we  have  received  not 
the  spirit  of  the  world,  but  the  spirit  which  is  of  God, 
that  we  might  know  the  things  that  are  freely  given  to  us 
of  God.”  If,  ceasing  to  be  merely  natural,  we  become 
spiritual,  in  the  true  apostolic  sense;  we  shall  discern,  I 
am  sure,  if  not  all  things,  many  things  that  have  as  yet 
been  hidden  from  us. 

There  is  yet  another  remarkable  contrast  between 
opinion  and  life,  which  is  seen  in  the  fact  that  opinions 
may  be  written  down,  or  retained  in  the  memory,  while 
the  realizations  of  faith  and  love  and  spirit  cease  and  dis¬ 
appear,  as  they  themselves  do,  unable  either  to  be  retained 
in  the  memory,  or  to  be  recalled,  in  any  manner,  after¬ 
wards.  Spiritual  truth  dies  with  spiritual  life.  It  is  vital, 
it  is  essential  life  in  its  own  nature,  and  therefore  must 
be  kept  alive  as  it  began  to  live,  by  an  inward  and  im¬ 
mediate  connection  with  God.  Perhaps  I  shall  come 
nearest  to  an  exact  representation,  if  I  say  that  spiritual 
truth  is  God  Himself,  dwelling  in  the  soul  and  manifested 
there.  This,  it  seems  to  me,  is  the  clear  implication  of 
John,  when  he  represents  the  same  truth  just  now  asserted 
from  Paul,  under  the  figure  of  an  unction.  “  Ye  have 
an  unction  from  the  Holy  One,  and  know  all  things — but 
the  anointing  which  ye  have  received  of  him,  abideth  in 
you,  and  ye  need  not  that  any  man  teach  you,  but  as  the 
same  anointing  teacheth  you  of  all  things,  and  is  truth, 
and  is  no  lie,  and  even  as  it  hath  taught  you,  ye  shah 
abide  in  him.”  Here  the  implication  is,  that  the  know¬ 
ledge  will  abide,  because  the  unction  abides  ;  therefore, 
no  longer  than  the  unction  abides.  And  this,  exactly,  is 
the  experience  of  every  unfaithful  disciple.  His  ligh/|" 
26* 


300 


DOGMA  AND  SPIRIT 


perishes  with  his  love.  All  his  clear  perceptions  and 
vivid  realizations  of  God  depart,  and  cannot  be  recalled. 
Even  the  scripture  that  was  light,  grows  dark  again. 
His  opinions  remain,  but  his  soul,  like  a  chamber  shut  up 
at  noon,  is  forthwith  darkened,  as  soon  as  the  daylight 
of  God  is  shut  away. 

It  is  thus  made  plain  to  us  that  the  highest  and  only 
true  realizations  of  God  are  effected,  not  through 
opinion,  but  through  faith,  right  feeling,  spirit,  and  life. 
With  these,  mere  opinion  holds  a  very  clear  and  distinct 
contrast,  and  should  manifestly  occupy,  under  them,  a 
very  inferior  place.  Now,  opinion  is  one  of  the  elements 
of  dogma,  and  therefore,  dogma  holds  the  same  contrast, 
and  should  hold  the  same  place.  But  the  other  element 
is  authority,  or  a  ruling  power.  Conceive  opinion,  then, 
exalted  to  become  a  rule  to  faith,  to  the  perceptive  power 
of  love,  to  the  teachings  of  the  Spirit,  and  the  realizations 
of  the  life, — a  measure,  a  guide,  a  standard,  a  rule  of 
judgment,  a  test  of  character,  a  term  of  fellowship — then 
you  have  the  proper  conception  of  dogma.  This,  too,  I 
conceive,  to  be  its  proper  meaning  ;  also,  in  common  use, 
its  virtual  meaning  ;  and,  in  this  view,  as  it  is  found 
exalting  itself  above  faith  and  the  Spirit,  it  must,  in  rever¬ 
ence,  be  rejected. 

I  said  its  virtual  meaning.  Perhaps  1  ought  to  raise 
an  express  distinction  here  between  its  virtual  and  its 
conscious  or  intended  meaning ;  for  we  certainly  speak 
of  scientific  and  dogmatic  theology,  when  we  have  no 
thought  of  setting  human  speculations  and  opinions  above 
the  liberty  of  the  Spirit  and  the  light  of  faith,  and  when, 
in  fact,  we  should  heartily  disclaim  any  such  thought 


DISTINGUISHED. 


307 


Only  it  will  generally  turn  out,  after  all,  that  we  actually 
have  it ;  for  so  deeply  fixed  is  our  traditional  impression 
that  systematic  divinity,  school  theology,  or  whatever  we 
call  dogma,  is  to  be  the  rule  of  our  judgments  and  the  guar¬ 
dian  of  our  purity,  that  we  never  hesitate,  in  the  church 
or  in  the  council,  to  try  all  subjects  of  belief,  practice,  or 
character,  by  this  standard — admitting  no  possibility  that 
divine  illumination  may  have  assisted  any  disciple  to 
transcend  it,  and  really  assuming  that  we  want  no  such 
illumination  ourselves,  unless  it  be  in  the  application  of 
our  dogma  to  the  question  in  hand. 

Were  it  not  for  this  virtual  assumption  of  authority  in 
our  scnool  divinity,  which  makes  it  dogma,  when  really 
no  such  thing  is  thought  of  as  the  subjection  of  faith  and 
spirit  to  the  measures  of  opinion,  it  would  be  wholly 
unnecessary  to  take  any  stand  as  against  dogma.  Un¬ 
doubtedly  we  have  a  right  to  investigate  and  form 
opinions  in  matters  of  religion,  as  in  reference  to  all 
other  subjects — a  right,  also,  to  assert  and  teach  opinions 
— we  only  have  not  a  right  to  make  the  life  of  nature  and 
our  natural  judgments  a  law  to  the  inspirations  of  faith 
and  the  realizations  of  God,  in  the  hidden  life  of  the 
Spirit.  Manifestly,  opinions,  taken  as  mere  actings  of 
our  intellectual  nature,  cannot  compass  matters  of  so 
high  a  quality.  We  cannot,  by  any  mere  phosphores¬ 
cence  of  thought,  throw  out  from  within  ourselves  that 
daylight  which  our  soul  desires,  and  which,  in  the  mani¬ 
fested  radiance  of  God,  it  may  ever  have.  Neither  ia 
that  possible,  which  is  continually  assumed  without,  ap¬ 
parently,  even  the  suspicion  of  a  doubt,  that  theology 
taken  as  a  work  of  analysis  and  speculative  generaliza 


308 


DOGMA  AND  SPIRIT 


tion,  is  competent  to  produce  a  body  of  judgments  that 
will  be  a  true  and  proper  science  of  God.  If  there  is 
ever  to  be  anything  produced  here  that  can  reasonably  be 
called  a  science,  it  will  more  resemble  an  experience  than 
the  dry  judgments  and  barren  generalizations  hitherto 
called  theology.  To  have  science  of  a  matter  is  to 
know  it,  and  there  are  many  of  the  humblest  babes  of 
faith,  in  corners  of  obscurity  here  and  there,  who  really 
know  more,  and  have  a  truer  science  of  God,  than  some 
who  are  most  distinguished  among  the  Christian  doctors. 

Besides,  if  we  are  ever  to  have  any  sufficient  or 
tolerably  comprehensive  theology,  it  can  never  be  ma¬ 
tured,  save  through  the  medium  of  an  esthetic  elevation 
in  the  sensibilities  of  our  souls,  which  only  the  closest 
possible  union  of  the  life  to  God  can  produce.  For  the 
scriptures  offer  us  the  great  truths  of  religion,  not  in 
propositions,  and  articles  of  systematic  divinity.  They 
only  throw  out  in  bold  and  living  figures,  often  contrary  or 
antagonistic  in  their  forms,  the  truths  to  be  communicated. 
Language  is  itself  an  instrument,  wholly  incapable  of 
anything  more  adequate.  Therefore,  what  we  want,  in 
the  receiving  of  light  from  the  scripture,  is  a  living,  ingen¬ 
uous,  patient,  pure  sensibility — a  heart  so  quickened  by 
the  Spirit  of  God,  as  to  be  even  delicately  perceptive  of 
God’s  meaning  in  the  readings  and  symbols  he  gives  us. 
And  then,  having  gotten  the  truth,  we  want  modesty 
enough  not  to  take  our  spiritual  discernings  into  our 
natural  judgment,  fo  be  shaped  and  manipulated  there — 
modesty  enough  not  to  assume  that  we  can  go  beyond 
the.  scriptures  and  body  into  science  and  fixed  articles  of 
divinity,  what  they,  for  want  of  any  sufficient  medium. 


DISTINGUISHED. 


309 


never  attempted.  So  that,  after  all,  our  ripe  comprehen¬ 
sive  theology,  when  we  find  it,  will  be  so  convoluted 
with  spirit,  and  so  mixed  with  faith,  that  it  will  be  as 
much  a  life,  a  holy  breadth  and  catholicity  of  spirit,  as  a 
theory.  It  will  be  as  far  from  possible  representation,  in 
any  of  the  niggard  forms  of  abstract  science,  or  the 
debated  articles  of  school  divinity,  as  can  be  conceived. 

It  is  not  my  design,  then,  as  you  perceive,  wholly  to 
discard  opinion,  science,  systematic  theology,  or  even 
dogma  in  the  best  possible  sense  of  the  term.  I  would 
only  set  the  judgments  of  the  natural  life  in  their  proper 
place — or  rather  in  a  place  that  is  not  most  improper ; 
for,  in  proper  truth,  all  the  thinkings,  judgments,  ana¬ 
lyzings,  opinions,  and  the  faculties  by  which  they  are 
wrought,  should  themselves  be  filled  with  the  same  quick¬ 
ening  Spirit,  and  exalted  by  the  same  faith  which  animates 
the  heart ;  with  that,  also,  bathed  in  the  radiance  and  in¬ 
dwelling  light  of  God,  so  as  to  be  themselves  organs  and 
vehicles  of  essential  truth  and  life.  Then  every  faculty 
is  promoted,  and  the  whole  man  becomes  spirit,  acting 
not  as  in  mere  nature,  but  as  in  the  life  of  God  ;  without 
eagerness,  partiality,  prejudice,  or  care — acting  as  in 
rest.  And  then  it  will  be,  not  science,  stretching  itself 
as  before,  to  compass  the  unimaginable  and  infinite 
worlds  of  faith,  but  science  indeed,  the  quiet  reading  of 
God  through  the  heart.  The  noise  and  commotion 
before  made,  in  the  busy  clatter  of  opinions,  ceases,  and 
the  tumult  is  heard  no  more.  We  dwell  in  the  light,  in 
the  stillness,  so  to  speak,  of  the  light  of  God  ;  for  light  is 
a  silent  element — all  vivacity,  another  name  for  motion, 
but  silent 


310 


THE  PROVINCE  AND  USES 


But  it  is  not  in  this  highest,  truest  state  of  spiritual 
life  and  union  to  God,  that  the  gospel  finds  us.  Our 
faith  is  imperfect,  only  initiated,  possibly  not  even  that ; 
and  since  the  world  we  live  in,  too,  is  full  of  false  learn¬ 
ing,  corrupt  opinion,  and  deceitful  pretenses  of  know¬ 
ledge,  we  must  be  allowed  to  cultivate  theology,  with 
what  measures  of  grace  we  have,  and  struggle  up  through 
our  imperfect  mixtures  of  natural  judgment  and  spiritual 
discernment,  into  the  full  day  of  light  and  love.  Though 
our  theologies  and  opinions  and  supposed  scientific  con¬ 
clusions,  in  as  far  as  they  are  of  the  mere  life  of  nature, 
have  no  more  of  authority,  and  are  no  more  entitled  to  a 
Christian  standing  than  our  speculations  in  geology,  they 
nave  yet  a  far  higher  consequence,  because  they  are  re¬ 
lated  to  matters  of  graver  import,  and  are  sure  to  be 
connected  with  results  of  deeper  consequence. 

That  I  may  produce  a  just  impression  of  my  subject, 
and  deliver  it  of  any  appearance  of  partiality  or  extrava¬ 
gance,  let  me  enumerate,  here,  some  of  the  uses  that  are 
served  by  Christian  theories,  and  the  scientific  forms  of 
truth  elaborated  by  the  Christian  symbols,  and  teachers. 

In  the  first  place,  they  have  an  immense  pedagogic 
value.  I  mean,  by  this,  that,  like  the  old  system  of 
Moses,  they  are  schoolmasters  to  bring  us  to  Christ. 
Doubtless  they  often  deserve,  and  with  much  greater 
emphasis,  to  be  called  “  beggarly  elements,”  yet  there  are 
uses  to  be  served  by  them  still.  The  world  is  not  in  the 
spirit,  but  in  the  life  of  nature.  There  it  must  be  met, 
and  somewhat  on  its  own  level.  If  it  were  addressed 
only  out  of  the  inner  light,  and  in  terms  of  the  highest 


OF  CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


311 


and  purest  Christian  experience,  it  would  be  no  better 
than  if  it  were  called  in  an  unknown  tongue.  But  Chris¬ 
tian  theology  comes  to  it,  with  a  view  or  theoretic  out¬ 
line  of  the  gospel,  which  is  itself  made  up,  for  the  most 
part,  speculatively,  within  the  life  of  nature.  It  enters 
into  the  thinking  power,  and  begins  a  motion  there. 
If  it  is  lame,  in  itself,  as  all  systems  are,  still  it  will  have 
a  value.  Probably  it  will  have  some  connection  with 
the  age,  and  will  set  forth  Christ,  in  a  scheme  of  thought 
that  has  some  reference  to  the  present  habit  and  want. 
In  this  way,  Christianity  gets  into  the  mental  system  of 
the  world,  and,  through  that,  into  the  heart.  A  good 
scheme  is  far  better  than  a  bad,  but  even  a  bad  will  be 
better  than  none  at  all ;  for  if  Christianity  were  known 
and  presented  only  from  the  point  of  highest  spiritual 
experience,  it  would  never  find  a  place  of  contact ;  there¬ 
fore,  no  place  to  begin  its  regenerative  work.  And  yet, 
there  is  more  of  the  true  light  of  Christ  in  one  hour  of 
highest  communion  with  him,  than  the  best  scheme  of 
theological  opinions  has  ever  been  able  to  offer. 

A  similar  and  very  important  influence  is  exerted  by 
the  catechetic  discipline  of  children,  or  their  exercise  in 
Christian  doctrine.  Here  might  seem,  at  first  view,  to 
be  one  place,  where  dogma,  in  its  proper  sense  of  am 
thority,  is  appropriate.  But  it  will  be  found,  after  all, 
that  the  soul  of  a  child  will  not  be  fastened  to  Christ  b1* 

9 

epikes  of  dogma  driven  by  parental  authority.  Th  > 
truest  power  of  discipline  is  that  which  is  most  divine, 
the  fragrance  of  a  divine  life  filling  the  house.  Still 
there  is  wanted  a  human  view  of  Christ  and  his  truth,  a 
conception  of  principles,  opinions,  and,  to  some  extent,  of 


312 


THE  PROVINCE  AND  USES 


theoretic  matter,  which,  if  they  are  catechetically  given, 
will  work  in  the  childish  mind  as  moving  powers  of 
thought,  and  so,  as  preparatives  and  grounds  of  a  true 
Christian  faith. 

Secondly,  there  is  an  instinct  of  system  in  our  nature, 
which  must  have  its  liberties  and  opportunities  in  religion 
as  in  all  subjects.  Our  mind  adheres  to  unity,  demand¬ 
ing  that  all  events  and  opinions  shall  conform  to  system, 
and  support,  as  a  whole,  what  we  sometimes  call  the 
unity  of  reason.  Hence  we  are  continually  drawing  our 
knowledges,  consciously  or  unconsciously,  toward  unity; 
and  if  we  succeed  but  poorly  in  our  attempts,  the  little 
success  we  have  comforts  us,  and  our  endeavor  comforts 
us  still  more.  Manifestly  it  is  wholly  impossible  for  us, 
in  the  mere  life  of  nature,  and  by  force  of  opinion,  to 
grasp  the  universe  of  religion,  and  mold  it  into  the 
system  of  a  science.  Still,  if  only  we  set  the  world 
pulling  at  these  high  themes  by  guesses  and  yearnings 
after  knowledge,  they  may  possibly  draw  themselves  up, 
at  last,  by  God’s  help,  into  those  higher  realizations  which 
are  fitly  called  science.  I  suppose  it  has  been  generally 
observed,  that  curiosity  abates  when  faith  enters,  and  that 
the  instinct  of  system  lulls  in  its  activity,  as  spiritual  life 
quickens  in  the  soul.  And  the  reason  seems  to  be  that, 
when  it  is  connected  thus  with  the  life  of  God,  and  receives 
him  in  his  power,  it  virtually  receives  all  system — 'even 
the  true  system  of  God  Himself,  and  has  it,  by  a  sense 
deeper  than  consciousness,  or  at  least,  in  a  manner  that 
is  beyond  definite  conception.  It  has  the  sympathetic 
touch,  if  I  may  so  speak,  of  all  things,  and  blesses  itself  in 
the  sense  of  a  unity  vaster  than  thought  can  reach 


OF  CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


313 


And  it  will  be  seen  that,  in  this  view,  scientific  theology 
stimulates  the  soul  in  reaching  after  God.  It  is  the 
alphabet  in  which  nature  begins  to  stammer ;  which 
exercises  and  also  exasperates  her  curious  impulses,  pre¬ 
paratory  to  a  true  knowledge  of  God  in  His  fullness. 

Thirdly,  there  is  a  value  in  scientific  theology,  consid¬ 
ered  as  a  speculative  equipment,  for  meeting  the  assaults 
of  unbelief,  false  learning  and  scepticism.  I  am  well 
aware  of  the  unfruitfulness  of  mere  polemic  argumenta¬ 
tions  with  infidels  and  sceptics.  Few  are  the  cases 
where  such  argumentations  have  produced  conviction, 
and  led  to  a  hearty  embrace  of  Christ.  And  yet  there 
is  an  effect  of  inestimable  value,  one  remove  farther  off, 
and  more  general,  viz.,  in  the  impression  produced,  that 
Christianity  has  something  to  say,  that  it  can  take  its 
place  on  a  level  even  with  science,  and  stand  scrutiny 
there,  holding  its  ground  invincibly  against  all  opponents. 
Were  it  not  for  this,  had  it  nothing  to  speak  of  but  expe¬ 
riences  and  spiritualities,  it  would  be  disrespected  by  the 
uninitiated,  as  a  scheme  that  begins  and  ends  in  unintel¬ 
ligible  vagaries. 

Fourthly,  Christianity  must  be  handled  under  forms  of 
science  and  speculation,  because  in  that  manner  only  can 
it  form  a  valid  connection  with  truths  of  fact  and 
philosophy.  Christianity  does  not  come  into  the  world 
armed  against  all  other  knowledge,  to  destroy  it.  It 
claims,  on  the  contrary,  its  right  to  possess  and  appropri¬ 
ate  and  melt  into  unity  with  itself,  all  other  truth  ;  for 
whatever  truth  there  is  in  the  universe  belongs  to  the 
Lord  of  Christianity,  and  holds  a  real  consistency,  both 
with  him  and  it.  Therefore  Christianity  must  open  its 
27 


314 


PROVINCE  AND  USES 


bosom,  bring  its  holy  affinities  into  play,  repel  the  false 
attract  the  true,  and  gather  to  its  poles  all  particles  of 
knowledge  and  science,  as  the  loadstone  gathers  the 
particles  of  iron.  Hence  Christianity  fell  into  immediate 
contact  with  all  human  philosophies  and  opinions,  and  a 
process  of  attrition  began,  in  which  it  was,  at  last,  to  wear 
itself  into  union  with  all  real  truth.  The  same  process  is 
now  going  on  between  Christianity  and  the  revelations  of 
science.  Thus,  for  example,  it  was  seriously  apprehended 
that  the  modern  doctrines  of  astronomy  would  make  as 
great  havoc  of  Christianity,  as  they  certainly  did  of 
many  of  the  church  dogmas.  But  the  God  of  Calvary 
and  of  the  firmament,  the  love  of  one  and  the  grandeur  of 
the  other,  are  gradually  melting  into  union.  We  have 
still  immense  masses  of  theologic  rubbish  on  hand,  which 
belong  to  the  Ptolemaic  system,  huge  piles  of  assumption 
about  angels  that  have  never  sinned  and  angels  that 
have,  about  other  worlds  and  the  reach  of  Christ’s 
atonement  there,  which  were  raised  up,  evidently,  on 
the  world,  when  it  was  flat,  and  must  ultimately  disap¬ 
pear,  as  we  come  into  a  more  true  sense  of  the  astro¬ 
nomic  universe.  So,  also,  geology,  opening  to  view  new 
conceptions  of  the  cosmogony  of  the  universe,  is  destined 
gradually  to  assimilate  with  the  Christian  truth  and  be¬ 
come  a  part  of  it.  For,  as  God  is  one,  he  is  sure,  at  last, 
to  be  found  in  agreement  with  himself.  And  then  we 
shall  know  the  Christian  truth  as  much  more  perfectly, 
as  we  better  concern^  the  truth  of  things.  Science 
without,  will  favor  simplicity  and  rest  within.  As  the 
idols  of  superstition  or  false  science  are  displaced,  as  the 
range  of  intellection  is  broader  and  more  clear,  Chria- 


OF  CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


315 


tianity  will  better  know  her  place,  her  office,  and  her 
nature.  And  if  she  has  many  times  beer,  corrupted  and 
shackled  by  the  false  wisdom  of  man,  she  will  emerge,  at 
last,  in  the  strength  and  freedom  of  her  youth,  as  much 
more  at  home  in  the  broad  universe  of  her  Lord,  as  much 
readier  to  fulfill  a  mission  of  victory  and  grandeur,  as  she 
better  knows  herself  and  the  orbit  in  which  she  moves. 

Once  more,  considering  that  Christian  character  is 
imperfect,  liable  to  the  instigation  of  passion,  to  be 
overheated  in  the  flesh  and  think  it  the  inspiration  of 
God,  Christian  theology  and  speculative  activity  are 
needed  as  providing  checks  and  balances  for  the  life,  to 
save  it  from  visionary  flights,  erratic  fancies,  and  wild 
hallucinations.  It  was  partly  for  the  want,  I  suppose,  of 
some  such  influence  as  this,  that  Papias,  Tertullian, 
Irenseus,  the  sober  Clement,  even,  and  a  large  class  of  the 
early  teachers  ran  into  so  many  absurd  and  fanciful 
errors.  The  intellectual  life  needs  to  be  kept  in  high 
action,  else,  under  pretense  of  living  in  the  Spirit,  we  are 
soon  found  living  in  our  fancies  and  our  passions — just 
as  the  kite  rises  gracefully  and  sleeps  in  equipoise  on  the 
upper  air,  only  in  virtue  of  a  pull  upon  the  cord  below  ; 
and  if  it  be  maintained  that  the  cord  only  pulls  downward, 
and  not  upward,  it  does  yet  hold  the  bosom  of  the  paper 
voyager  to  the  breeze,  without  which  it  would  soon  be 
pitching  in  disorderly  motions  to  the  ground.  It  appears, 
in  other  words,  that  we  have  two  distinct  meth  Dds  of 
knowledge,  a  lower  method  in  the  life  of  nature,  and  a 
higher,  in  the  life  of  faith.  Therefore,  we  are  not  to  set 
them  in  mutual  opposition,  as  has  generally  been  done 
heretoforev  by  the  rationalists  on  one  side,  and  the  mys* 


316 


THE  PROVINCE  AND  USES 


tic  on  the  other;  but  we  are  to  assume  that  a  healthy 
working  of  our  religious  nature  is  that  which  justifies 
uses,  exercises,  all.  Regarding  the  realm  of  reason,  and 
the  realm  of  faith,  as  our  two  Houses  of  Assembly,  we 
are  to  consider  nothing  as  enacted  into  a  law,  which  has 
not  been  able  to  pass  both  houses.  For  if  a  man  will 
reduce  all  religious  truth  to  the  molds  and  measures  of 
the  natural  understanding,  receiving  nothing  by  faith, 
which  transcends  the  measures  of  the  understanding,  he 
acts,  in  fact,  upon  the  assumption  that  he  has  no  heart ; 
and  as  he  cannot  perceive,  by  the  understanding,  what 
is  perceivable  only  by  the  faith  of  the  heart,  he 
ignores  all  living  truth,  and  becomes  a  sceptic  or  a 
rationalist.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  what  power  of  reason 
or  science  he  had  is  wholly  disallowed  and  renounced,  so 
as  to  operate  a  check  no  longer  on  the  contemplations  of 
faith,  or  assist  in  framing  into  order  the  announcements 
of  feeling,  then  faith  and  feeling  are  become  a  land  of 
dreams,  and  the  man  who  begun  as  a  Christian,  ends  as 
a  mystic.  Faith  must  learn  to  be  the  light  of  nature, 
nature  to  apply  her  cautions  and  constraining  judgments. 
The  heart  and  the  head  must  be  as  two  that  walk 
logether,  never  so  truly  agreed  as  when  they  agree  to 
help  each  other. 

Accordingly,  it  is  one  of  the  chief  problems  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  to  settle  the  true  relationship  of  reason  and  faith, 
the  truth  of  reason  and  the  truth  of  the  life ;  a  great  and 
truly  magnificent  problem,  in  the  working  of  which  all 
the  past  ages  of  the  church  have,  under  God,  been 
engaged.  To  settle  this,  and  bring  us  out,  at  last,  into  a 
true  and  healthy  conception  of  the  natural  and  the 


OF  CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


317 


spiritual,  as  related  one  to  the  other,  seems  to  me  1o  be 
the  real  burden  of  the  past  history  of  the  church.  For  i< 
the  descent  into  dogma,  of  which  I  have  spoken,  has 
been  a  most  sorrowful  experience,  which  few  will  be 
able  to  deny — if  it  has  even  been  a  fall,  answering,  m  one 
view,  to  the  first  fall  of  the  race,  still  this  experience,  this 
fall,  it  were  even  wrong  not  to  believe  will  at  last  turn 
out  for  the  furtherance  of  the  gospel.  God  suffers  no 
barren  experience — this  will  not  be  such.  On  the  con¬ 
trary,  if  we  are  to  return,  as  I  fervently  hope,  to  the 
simple  life-giving  truths  of  the  first  teachers,  we  must  ex¬ 
pect  to  go  back  enriched  by  this  dark  experience.  Indeed 
those  eminent  disciples  who  have  risen  up,  here  anc 
there,  to  recall  us  to  the  simple,  original  truth  of  Christ 
seem  to  me  to  have  failed,  on  this  very  account,  that  they 
have  had  no  sufficient  perception  of  the  benefits  to  be 
received  from  this  exercise  of  man  upon  the  Christian 
truth.  And  so,  beginning  an  unreasonable  war  upon  the 
uses  of  reason,  they  have  failed,  of  necessity.  Contrary 
to  this,  it  is  my  hope,  that  God  is  about  to  bring  us  back 
to  the  original,  simple  age  of  spirit  and  life,  and  yet,  in 
such  a  way,  that  we  shall  have  our  benefit  in  what  we 
have  suffered,  and  shall  see  that  all  the  sorrows  we  have 
passed  through,  and  the  confusions  we  have  wrought, 
were  necessary,  in  a  sense,  to  the  complete  intelligence 
and  final  establishment  of  the  church. 

Let  us  turn  our  thoughts,  now,  for  a  few  moments,  in 
this  direction,  inquiring  how  and  why  it  was  that  the 
church  made  her  lapse  into  dogma,  and  glancing  at  some 
27* 


318 


CAUSES  OF  THE 


of  the  happy  results  that  are  to  follow,  when  she  emerges 
and  resumes  her  true  position. 

The  discontinuance  of  the  spiritual  gifts  and  prodigies 
of  the  apostolic  age,  necessitated  a  remarkable  change 
in  the  action  of  the  church.  While  those  gifts  continued, 
the  external  life  of  religion  was  so  strikingly  set  off  by 
wonders  as  to  hold  the  mind  to  itself,  and  detain  it,  in  a 
great  measure,  from  speculation,  as  well  as  from  the 
more  reflective  and  philosophic  forms  of  thought.  In¬ 
deed,  the  church  was  beginning  to  regard  the  outward 
gifts,  not  as  the  signs  only  of  an  inward  agency,  for 
which  purpose  they  were  added,  but  as  being  in  them¬ 
selves  the  substantial  import  of  the  Spirit.  Hence 
it  was  necessary  that  they  should  be  discontinued. 
Now,  therefore,  begins  a  struggle.  Henceforth  the  disci¬ 
ples  know  nothing  of  the  Spirit  but  by  his  invisible  work 
in  the  heart.  Accordingly,  their  minds  are  invaded  by 
endless  questions.  They  begin  to  reason.  They  invent 
opinions.  They  mix  in  theories.  They  draw  out  propo¬ 
sitions.  They  run  the  Christian  truth,  in  short,  into  all 
the  shapes  suggested  to  their  thoughts,  or  gendered  by 
their  prurient  fancy.  It  could  not  well  have  been  other¬ 
wise.  For  a  pure  doctrine  of  spirit  and  life,  dropped 
into  the  mind  of  a  creature  half  in  the  spirit  and  half 
in  the  flesh,  manifestly  could  not,  be  held,  so  that  nothing 
from  the  side  of  the  flesh  should  mix  with  the  side  of 
the  spirit,  to  corrupt  its  simplicity  and  deform  its  truth 
As  the  gospel  extended  its  sway  and  became  familiar 
ized  to  men,  a  more  worldly  and  less  intensely  Christian 
spirit  began  to  appear  in  the  church ;  and  it  will 
always  be  observed  that,  as  the  activity  of  faith  and 


LAPSE  INTO  DOGMA. 


319 


spirit  declines,  the  activity  of  the  flesh  and  of  dogma 
inci  eases.  When  the  disciple  is  filled  with  love,  he 
hardly  knows  what  to  do  with  dogma ;  but  if  the  fund 
of  love  is  spent  or  exhausted,  he  wants  a  large  supply 
of  it,  and  probably  some  very  stiff  wars  to  maintain 
for  it  besides  ;  for  when  the  activity  of  spirit  fails,  the 
activity  of  nature,  including  the  will  and  the  passions 
and  even^  the  muscular  parts,  is  needed  to  supply  the 
defect. 

Just  here,  too,  Christianity  was  coming  into  contact 
with  the  Greek  philosophy,  which  exasperated  the  same 
evil  tendency  ;  for  the  Greek  philosophy  was  a  wisdom 
in  the  life  of  nature — all  opinion,  doctrine,  dogma — uni¬ 
versally  admired,  a  name  for  scholarship  itself,  and  all 
elegant  learning.  Many  persons  have  wondered  why,  or 
in  what  manner,  Christianity  became  so  intensely  doc¬ 
trinal  or  dogmatic  ;  for  they  discover  no  such  character  in 
the  teachings,  whether  of  Christ  or  his  apostles ;  but  the 
fact  is  easily  explained,  when  once  it  is  recollected  that 
the  Greek  learning  or  wisdom,  which  is  nothing  but  a 
body  of  natural  judgments  and  opinions,  emptied  itself 
into  the  bosom  of  the  Christian  church,  and  gave  it  a 
character.  Nothing  met  the  Greek  mind  which  was 
not  doctrine.  Opinions,  dialectic  arguments  decided 
all  questions.  Christianity,  therefore,  to  meet  such  a 
disposition,  must  take  on  the  Socratic  method,  draw  out 
her  contents  into  dialectic  articles,  and  set  herself  be¬ 
fore  men  to  be  accepted,  not  as  Christ,  not  as  the  in¬ 
carnate  Life,  but  as  doctrine. 

Precisely  here,  too,  Christianity  rises  into  power,  and 
becomes  a  state  religion.  The  bishops  go  up  into  dio- 


320 


RESULTING  BENEFITS 


cesan  eminence,  as  piety  and  truth  go  down.  Under¬ 
standings  are  formed  between  them  and  the  civil  power 
and  mutual  stipulations  are  entered  into,  these  to  sup¬ 
port  the  state,  the  state  to  support  their  ecclesiastical 
pretensions,  and  enforce  their  favorite  dogmas  by  the 
civil  arm.  Christianity,  the  living  words  that  Jesus 
spoke  to  the  world’s  heart,  hardened  thus  into  dogmas ; 
the  dogmas  flashed  into  swords  ;  and  the  swords,  having 
each  a  cutting  edge,  hewing  its  way  into  the  necks  and 
the  blood  of  human  beings,  became  fit  symbols  of  the 
awful  transformation  that  must  follow,  when  the  natural 
life  displaces  the  spiritual,  and  opinion,  sharpened  by  the 
stern'  sanctions  of  religion,  is  exalted  into  law.  Thus  it 
was  that  Christianity  became  so  intensely  doctrinal — this 
was  the  fall  of  the  church  into  dogma.  It  is  a  melan¬ 
choly  sight ;  but  in  what  manner  it  could  have  been  pre¬ 
vented  I  do  not  see.  Most  Christians  of  our  age  sup¬ 
pose,  I  believe,  that  we  are  quite  cured  of  this  disaster — 
in  which  they  mistake  as  badly  as  it  is  possible. 

^  But  the  cure  is  to  come — though  as  yet  quite  incom¬ 
plete.  We  no  more  look  upon  it  as  Christian  to  make 
opinions  draw  blood,  but  we  hold  them  still  as  rules  of 
judgment  and  terms  of  fellowship,  m  a  sense  almost  as 
absolute  as  ever.  This  error  also  must  be  cleared,  and 


then,  when  the  church  ascends  again  into  the  realm  of 
love  and  life,  it  will  be  seen,  as  I  firmly  believe,  that 

•n  r  a  r  p  * 

2  jr$  •>  t-o>  -4-  -  L  f  *  '  •'  '■>  > 

these  long  ages  of  trial  and  darkness  have  peaceable 
fruits  of  righteousness  to  yield  us  at  the  last. 

Most  obviously  it  was  necessary,  not  only  that  the 
gospel  should  be  set  forth  positively,  as  spirit  and  life,  bu 
thht  all  the  negatives  round  about  should  also  beset  fa  tl 


OF  THE  SAME. 


32 


In  jrder  to  have  an  exact,  definite  conception  of  the 
Christian  truth,  we  must  know  as  well  what  it  is  not,  as 
what  it  is — know  it  in  contrast  with  what  it  is  not. 
Thus  we  have,  in  the  first  age,  not  a  trinity,  but  simpty 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost.  But  how  can  we  ever 
conceive,  at  all,  what  this  means,  until  we  are  shown 
what  it  does  not  mean  ?  And  then,  to  show  us  this,  it  is 
necessary  that  somebody  should  rise  up  in  the  world  and 
assert  that  it  means  something  which  it  does  not — three 
metaphysical  persons,  three  beings,  for  example,  existing 
on  terms  of  society.  Then,  perhaps,  another  somebody 
— some  Patripassian,  or  Arian,  for  example — not  satisfied 
with  this,  must  be  allowed  to  come  forward  with  his 
better  view.  And  then,  after  speculation  has  fully  ex¬ 
hausted  her  resources,  we  may  be  able  to  come  back,  and 
say,  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost,  knowing,  not  only, 
that  we  mean  something  by  the  words,  but  (which  is  a 
great  deal,)  exactly  what  we  do  not  mean  by  them 
And  that  will  be  enough,  it  may  be,  to  steady  and  com¬ 
fort  us  in  the  great  and  Holy  Three,  as  the  God  of  our 
worship,  forever.  That  we  can  ever  exactly  measure 
God,  or  the  divine  three,  so  as  to  comprehend  them  in  a 
positive  knowledge,  is  obviously  impossible.  Therefore, 
to  have  settled  what  is  not  the  truth,  may  quiet  our  spec¬ 
ulative  difficulties,  and  set  us,  ever  after,  in  a  condition 
of  intelligent  repose.  So,  in  regard  to  the  doctrine  of 
atonement,  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  of  depravity  and  regener¬ 
ation,  it  is  of  immense  consequence  to  have  found  out 
exactly  what  is  not  true.  And  here  it  is  that  ration¬ 
alism  is  found  to  be  doing  a  work  of  mournful,  yet  im¬ 
mense  practical  consequence  to  religion.  It  produce! 


322 


RESULTING  BENEFITS 


continually,  new  forms  of  thought — in  one  view,  nevf 
religions.  These  are  generally  more  negative  than  posi¬ 
tive  ;  still,  they  are  claimed  to  be  positive.  Then,  being 
set  on  foot,  we  are  to  see  what  is  in  them.  Thus,  if  any 
false  doctrine  of  Christ,  or  atonement,  is  advanced,  a 
difficulty  will  at  last  be  encountered,  the  machine  will 
not  go.  It  may  be  a  very  plausible,  very  reasonable 
looking  machine,  but  it  will  not  go.  Churches  will  not 
live  to  hold  it  or  ministers  to  preach  it ;  therefore  it  dies. 
Then  we  know,  by  experiment — a  very  important  experi¬ 
ment  it  is — that  this  is  not  the  living  truth.  Now,  all 
these  knowledges  of  what  the  truth  is  not,  were  undis¬ 
covered  to  the  men  of  the  first  age.  It  was  necessary 
that  the  human  understanding  should  go  to  work,  try  its 
hand  upon  the  truth,  bring  out  its  dogmas  or  opinions, 
and  let  the  world  see  them  die.  Then  it  is  visible  to  all 
men  what  the  truth  is  not ;  and  then  the  simple  living 
truth  of  God,  offered  to  our  faith,  surrounded  by  the  dead 
births  of  folly,  looks  more  divinely  clear  and  lovelier  to 
our  hearts. 

We  receive  the  same  truth,  under  a  somewhat  different 
form,  if  we  contemplate  Christianity  as  ordained  of  God 
for  the  expurgation,  at  last,  of  all  error — entering  the 
world,  therefore,  as  a  power  antagonistic  to  all  error,  and 
armed  at  all  points  for  the  deadly  grapple.  Only,  when 
we  speak  in  these  warlike  figures,  we  must  not  imagine 
a  certain  army,  called  the  truth,  drawn  up  fronting  a  cer¬ 
tain  army,  called  error.  The  battles  of  truth  are  not 
waged  in  this  manner.  The  difficulty  is  to  find  out 
error — -that,  in  fact,  is  the  war ;  for  when  error  is  once 
revealed  and  known,  it  dies  itself.  Hence,  it  was  the 


OF  THE  SAME. 


323 


great  problem  of  God  to  make  all  error  reveal  itself  ; 
that  is,  to  make  all  the  oblique  and  false-seeing  opinions 
of  man  disclose  themselves.  And  this  they  would  best  do, 
only  as  we  took  the  gospel  into  our  own  hands,  to  handle 
it  in  our  own  way,  and  try  our  own  wisdom  upon  it. 
First,  God  reveals  the  Christian  truth  ;  then  man,  begin¬ 
ning  to  work  upon  God’s  truth,  bringing  it  under  his  own 
theories,  measuring  it  in  dogmas  shaped  by  his  natural 
understanding,  makes  the  revelation  of  error.  Every 
infirmity  of  reason  is  displayed,  every  perverse  temper 
colors  some  opinion  to  be  its  visible  representative.  The 
ambition,  the  pride,  and  even  the  devilish  cruelty  of  man 
— all  are  brought  forth  into  dogma,  and  are  seen  assuming, 
one  after  another,  some  theologic  shape,  ugly  enough  to 
represent  their  detestable  origin.  And  thus  it  is  that  all 
error  is  to  appear  and  die  out  in  the  handling  of  God’s 
truth.  Thus  men  shall  try  at  the  gospel,  and  try  out  the 
poisonous  errors  by  which  their  human  wisdom  would 
mend  it.  It  goes  into  mixture  and  solution  with  all 
their  human  thoughts  and  theories,  to  form  its  own 
nucleus  and  crystallize,  at  last,  all  truth  and  science 
about  itself.  And  so,  every  controversy,  council  and 
burning,  down  to  the  present  moment,  has  been  either 
the  winnowing  out,  or  what  is  not  far  different,  the 
revealing  and  acting  out  of  some  error.  Heresies  are 
most  commonly  the  counterpoints  of  heresy,  and  the 
resulting  motion,  generated  between  them,  is  an  almost 
certain  approach  towards  the  Christian  truth.  Accord¬ 
ingly,  the  eyes  of  men  are  now  being  turned,  as  never 
6efore,  towards  the  hope  of  some  new  catholic  age,  where 
spirit  and  faith,  having  gotten  their  proper  realm,  (.lea* 


324 


RESULTING  BENEFITS 


of  adverse  possession,  shall  be  able  to  abide  there  in  God’s 
simple  light,  to  range  it  in  liberty,  and  fill  it  with  love. 

Nor  let  any  one  doubt  the  possibility  of  such  an  issue 
to  the  agonies  of  the  church.  All  such  distrust  is  carnal, 
and  pusillanimous.  Truth  is  omnipotence — a  slow  om¬ 
nipotence,  I  grant,  but  yet  omnipotence.  It  runs  through 
churches,  men,  and  empires,  with  a  galvanic  current, 
only  with  a  different  celerity — sometimes,  too,  as  we  have 
seen  of  late,  with  an  almost  galvanic  celerity.  No  power 
of  man  can  raise  an  impassable  barrier  against  it,  or  do 
anything  more  than  to  offer  some  false  argument,  whose 
point  shall  receive  the  charge,  and  be  shivered  in  its 
passage.  Bayonets  it  will  as  easily  shiver.  Some  think 
despairingly  of  truth,  because  she  seems,  at  times,  to 
have  been  so  long  disarmed  and  trampled  on.  Never 
was  she  disarmed,  never  was  there  an  hour  in  which  she 
has  not  been  hastening  to  victory.  Her  dark  ages,  as  we 
call  them,  were  only  her  dark  arguments.  Her  penal 
fires  and  dungeons  have  been  the  victory  of  her  patience. 
And  now  she  is  coming  forth,  I  trust,  out  of  her  tribula¬ 
tion,  to  speak  to  a  world,  whose  centuries  of  woe  have,  at 
last,  opened  its  ears.  The  long  night  we  have  passed 
was  itself  but  the  death-scene  of  error,  in  which  truth, 
behind  her  veil,  stood  jubilant,  in  the  brightness  of  an 
angel. 

Such,  I  conceive,  are  some  of  the  uses  that  have  been 
served  by  Christian  dogmatism.  Most  bitterly  has  the 
church  suffered,  and  yet  her  pains  have  been  salutary- 
pains,  I  may  say,  of  birth.  She  forsook  her  simplicity, 
and  went  after  wisdom  ;  she  tried  to  get  the  spirit  into 
the  letter  ;  she  asked  the  natural  man  to  tell  her  of  Christ, 


OF  THE  SAME. 


325 


and  explain  the  life  of  faith  in  the  terms  of  reason 
Dreadful  was  the  confusion  that  followed.  She  took  hell 
into  her  bosom,  and  fanned  the  fire  with  her  prayers,  till 
the  fuel  was  exhausted.  And  now,  at  last,  when  the 
fires  are  going  out,  and  she  begins  to  find  herself 
encrusted  all  over,  in  the  cooling,  with  a  dry  cinder  of 
dogma,  she  thinks  again  of  the  Life,  and  the  times  of 
her  first  liberty,  and  hears  a  gentle  voice  of  chiding  at 
her  heart, — “  O,  foolish  Galatians,  who  hath  bewitched 
you !  Having  begun  in  the  spirit,  are  ye  now  made  per¬ 
fect  by  the  flesh !” 

Reviewing,  now,  the  ground  over  which  we  have 
passed,  you  will  see  that  in  the  opening  of  my  discourse, 
I  set  forth  the  hope  of  a  new  religious  era,  or  great  and 
true  reviving  of  religion,  to  be  produced  by  a  general  dis¬ 
placement  of  dogma  and  the  restoration  of  the  church 
to  the  simple,  life-giving  spirit  of  the  apostolic  age. 
Next,  I  endeavored  to  exhibit  the  distinction  existing  be¬ 
tween  dogma  and  spirit,  or  science  and  faith.  Then  I 
spoke  of  the  uses  of  religious  opinions  and  systems,  or 
of  theological  science.  Lastly,  to  fill  out  the  true  theo¬ 
retic  conception  of  the  subject,  I  spoke  of  the  causes 
under  which  the  church  lapsed  into  dogma,  and  the 
advantages  she  will  have  gained  when  she  emerges  from 
it.  It  now  remains,  neglecting  logical  distribution,  to 
offe  some  thoughts  on  a  series  of  promiscuous  topics, 
practically  related  to  the  subject;  such  as  will  show  us 
where  we  now  are,  also  by  what  method  we  may  best 
escape  the  oppiessive  dominion  of  dogma,  and  find  oui 


28 


326  THEOLOGICAL  CAPACITIES 

way  back  into  the  genuine  apostolic  liberty  of  spirit 
and  life.  And — 

1.  It  needs,  at  the  present  time,  to  be  a  leading  topic 
of  inquiry  among  religious  teachers,  and  especially  in 
our  sciools  of  theology,  what  are  the  capacities  of  scien¬ 
tific  or  propositional  theology,  which,  for  the  sake  of 
brevity,  and  without  any  reference  to  the  matter  of 
authority,  we  will  call  dogma  ?  There  is  no  other  point 
in  the  whole  field  of  Christian  inquiry,  where  so  much 
light  is  to  be  expected,  and  so  much  impulse  given  to 
the  cause  of  Christ  in  the  earth,  as  here.  The  questions, 
too,  that  are  here  at  hand,  waiting  for  light,  are  some  of 
the  deepest  and  gravest  ever  offered  to  human  considera¬ 
tion.  They  are  such  as  these  : — 

(1.)  Whether  the  scriptures  embody  any  proper  sys¬ 
tem  of  dogmatic  theology ;  and,  if  not,  whether  it  is  be¬ 
cause  this  particular  work,  regarded  now  as  a  work  of 
highest  moment,  was  necessarily  reserved,  or  kept  back 
from  inspiration,  that  it  might  be  more  adequately  done 
by  the  science  of  the  natural  understanding,  and  the 
higher  constructive  wisdom  of  Christian  philosophy  ? 
(2.)  Whether  human  language  is  an  instrument  capable  of 
embodying,  in  propositions  and  forms  of  definition,  any 
proper  system  of  Christian  truth  ?  (3.)  How  far  religion 

is  poetic,  addressing  itself  to  the  imagination,  in  distinction 
from  the  understanding — requiring,  of  course,  a  sancti¬ 
fied  and  spiritually  elevated  imagination,  to  conceive  it  ? 
(4.)  How  far  it  is  a  matter  of  feeling,  addressing  itself  to 
an  esthetic  power  in  the  soul — perceived  and  perceivable 
only  through  a  heart  of  regenerated  sensibility  ;  one  that 
is  quickened  into  vitality,  and  even  rendered  delicately 


OF  DOGMA. 


327 


pure,  by  a  life  of  protracted,  secret  intimacy  with  God  0 
(5.)  Whether  truths  that  come  to  us  in  the  realms  of  im 
agination  and  feeling,  and  so  enter  as  powers  of  life  into 
our  religion,  can  be  presented  in  the  forms  of  logic,  or  in 
speculative  propositions  ?  (6.)  Why  dogma  has  hitherto 

been  so  remarkably  unsuccessful,  and  whether,  if  we 
admit  some  progress  in  theological  science,  it  has  not 
been  very  exactly  proportioned  to  the  relaxations  A 
dogmatic  rigor,  and  the  approaches  made  toward  spir¬ 
itual  freedom  in  the  church  at  large  ?  (7.)  How  much 

dogma  is  worth  as  a  test  of  character  ?  (8.)  Whether  true 

science  is  not  experimental,  whether  prayer  is  not  more 
experimental  than  speculation,  and  whether  it  is  so  be¬ 
cause  we  are  most  logical  and  most  dogmatic  in  prayer? 
(9.)  Whether  dogma  has  been,  as  we  continually  hear,  a 
bond  of  unity,  and  a  safeguard  of  purity  in  religion  ? 
(10.)  Whether  it  is  not  possible  to  be  very  much  dis¬ 
tinguished  in  systematic  theology,  and  yet  know  very 
little,  have  but  a  very  faint  conception  of  Christ  and 
Christian  truth  ?  Other  questions  of  equal  pertinence 
and  importance  will  be  found  lying  in  the  same  field. 
But  in  the  proper  handling  of  these  ten,  there  is  work 
prepared  for  a  life.  And  if  any  young  candidate  for  the 
ministry  could  sufficiently  answer  these  questions,  I  am 
free  to  confess  that  I  should  take  it  as  a  better  proof  oi 
his  fitness  to  preach  Christ  to  men,  than  I  should  if  he 
were  fluently  prepared  in  almost  any  scheme  of  schoo' 
divinity. 

2.  It  appears  evident  to  me  that  we  embrace  a  very 
great  and  truly  unchristian  error,  in  holding  the  relative 
estimate  we  do  of  the  head  and  the  heart.  When  we 


328 


THE  HEAD 


speak  ot  talent,  ministerial  talent  for  example,  how  gen¬ 
erally  is  it  estimated  by  the  head,  llow  extensively  is 
our  judgment  of  Christian  character  itself  suspended  on 
the  question  of  mere  opinions  and  theoretic  beliefs.  We 
seem  also  to  imagine,  which  is  worse  than  all,  that  the 
head  is  to  take  care  of  the  heart,  the  opinions  to  regulate 
the  faith — that  we  are  first  to  fill  the  head  or  natural  un¬ 
derstanding  with  articles  and  dogmas,  and  then  that  the 
head  is  to  shape  the  experience  of  the  life,  and  even  to 
be  a  law  to  the  working  of  the  Spirit.  Exactly  this,  in¬ 
deed,  when  baldly  stated,  is  the  theory  of  Christian  edu¬ 
cation  held  by  many  parents.  True  Christianity  holds  a 
very  different  opinion.  It  teaches  that  out  of  the  heart  are 
the  issues  of  life  ;  that  God  hath  given  us  light  in  the 
face  of  his  Son,  by  shining  into  our  heart ;  that  heresies 
themselves  belong  to  the  natural  understanding ;  and 
that  only  the  pure  in  heart  can  behold  the  face  of  God. 
Let  the  second  chapter  also  of  the  first  epistle  to  the 

Corinthians  be  studied,  and  it  will  open  a  deeper  and 

vaster  revelation  still.  Holding  these  representations  in 
view,  it  is  very  clear,  I  think,  that  there  is  something 
great  in  the  world  besides  understanding — another 
talent,  a  higher  and  more  Christian.  And  so  much  is 
there  in  this,  I  am  free  to  say,  that  if  I  were  to  choose 

a  preacher  for  myself,  holding  the  question  as  a  mere 

question  of  talent,  I  should  first  of  all  inquire  into  the 
talent  of  his  heart,  whether  that  light  is  in  him  which 
sh.nes  only  into  the  heart;  and  then,  a  long  time  after, 

I  would  begin  to  inquire  after  his  capacities  of  science, 
speculation,  understanding,  in  a  word,  his  head. 

In  this  matter  of  head  and  heart,  you  may  figure  the 


AND  THE  HEART. 


323 


head  or  understanding,  it  seems  to  me,  as  being  that 
little  plate  of  wood  hung  upon  the  stern  of  the  vessel,  that 
very  small  helm  by  w~hich  the  ship  is  turned  about 
whithersoever  the  governor  listeth.  But  the  heart  is  the 
full  deep  body  of  the  ship  itself,  with  its  sails  lifted  to  the 
breath  of  a  divine  inspiration,  containing  in  itself  the 
wealth,  the  joy,  and  all  the  adventuring  passions,  wants, 
and  fears  of  the  soul.  In  a  certain  superficial  sense, 
you  may  say  that  the  helm  is  everything,  because,  by 
that,  so  great  a  body  is  so  bravely  steered  and  turned 
about  in  the  sea.  And  the  man  at  the  helm  may  fancy, 
too,  that  he  is  the  moving  and  directing  cause  of  all. 
But  look  again,  and  you  shall  see  how  foolish  a  thing  this 
little  piece  of  wood  may  be ;  for  when  the  wind  sleeps, 
when  the  great  heart  of  the  ship  receives  no  inspiring 
breath,  then  how  idly  does  it  swing  from  side  to  side, 
as  a  vain  and  silly  thing.  It  is  by  the  love  of  the  heart 
only  that  we  know  God.  Here  is  all  inspiration,  all  true 
motion  and  power.  And  when  the  great  heart  of  faith 
is  not  parting  the  waves  of  life  before  it,  and  rushing  on 
to  its  haven,  the  busy  understanding  is  but  a  vain  and 
idle  thing,  swinging  round  and  round  with  an  addled 
motion,  whose  actions  and  reactions  are  equal,  and 
which,  therefore,  profit  nothing. 

O,  what  momentum,  and  power,  and  grandeur  will 
Christianity  reveal  when  a  true  Pauline  devotion  tc 
God  is  kindled  in  the  whole  church,  when  the  opinions 
of  the  head  cease  to  be  supreme,  when  the  petty  tyranny 
of  formulas  and  dogmas  falls  back,  dethroned,  and  the 
full  living  heart  of  the  church  is  offered,  without  sub¬ 
traction  to  the  occupancy  of  Christ  and  the  power  of 
2S% 


330 


THE  CHRISTIAN 


his  cross!  Every  thing  Christ-like  is  made  little  in  us 
now — chilled,  straitened,  pinched  by  the  usurpations 
of  the  head ;  or,  what  is  the  same,  by  the  debating, 
judging,  rationalizing  industry  of  our  human  wisdom, 
which,  in  God's  opinion,  is  only  foolishness.  This  brings 
me  to  speak  — 

3.  Of  insufficient  views  now  held  concerning  the 
Christian  ministry,  which  manifestly  need  to  be  cor¬ 
rected,  and  must  be,  before  the  full  power  of  preaching 
can  be  realized.  It  is  not  to  be  disguised,  that,  with 
the  immense  benefits  resulting  from  theological  semina¬ 
ries,  and  from  none  more  emphatically  than  from  this, 
there  have  also  been  connected  some  pernicious  results, 
which  time  only  could  develop.  They  are  such,  m 
great  part,  as  result  from  the  assembling  of  a  large  body 
of  young  men  in  a  society  of  their  own,  where  they 
mingle,  exhibit  their  powers  one  to  another,  debate 
opinions,  criticise  performances,  measure  capacities, 
applaud  demonstrations  of  genius,  talk  of  places  filled 
by  others,  and  conjecture,  of  course,  not  seldom,  what 
places  they  may  be  called  to  fill  themselves.  They  are 
thus  prepared  to  exhibit  Christ  scholastically,  rhetorically, 
dogmatically — too  often  ambitiously,  too  seldom  as  spirit 
and  life.  Perhaps  it  is  only  by  sore  mortification  and 
the  stern  discipline  of  defeat  or  diminishing  repute,  that 
they  will,  at  last,  be  humbled  into  the  true  knowledge 
>f  Christ,  and  prepared  to  bear  his  cross. 

I  may  speak  the  more  freely  on  this  subject  here, 
because  there  is  no  reason  to  suspect  that  what  I  may 
say  has  any  special  application.  I  am  also  moved  by 
the  conviction  that,  if  any  great  reviving  of  religion  is 


MINISTRY. 


33. 


to  be  prepared,  any  more  fruitful  era  of  Christian  piet) 
introduced,  it  will  be  seen,  first  of  all,  as  I  trust  it 
begins  to  be  already,  in  the  kindling  of  a  new  fire  in 
our  schools  of  theology.  Rejoicing,  also,  as  I  do,  in  the 
more  perfect  intellectual  discipline,  the  more  elevated 
scholarship,  the  personal  refinements  of  taste  and  char¬ 
acter  produced  in  our  schools  of  theology,  and  deeming 
these  improvements  necessary  even  to  the  advancing 
wants  of  American  society,  I  am  the  more  encouraged 
to  speak  of  defects  that  appear  in  connection  with  these 
benefits. 

Two  great  truths  of  the  highest  practical  import,  need 
to  be  set  in  the  mind  of  all  students  of  theology  and  all 
preachers  of  Christ,  as  probably  they  never  have  been, 
since  theology  began  to  be  attempted. 

First,  that  no  man  really  knows  Christ,  or  can  learn, 
or  be  taught  the  Christian  truth,  who  is  not  in  the  spirit 
of  Christ.  If  he  cannot  say,  “  Christ  liveth  in  me,”  not 
even  a  thousand  years  of  study  will  give  him  any  proper 
conception  of  the  Christian  plan.  Words  cannot  bring 
it  into  the  heart,  dogma  cannot  give  it  in  the  dry  light  ot 
reason.  The  mere  natural  understanding,  fruitful  as  it 
may  be  in  formulas  about  God,  can  as  little  see  Him,  as 
a  telescope  can  overtake  Him  in  the  sky,  or  a  microscope 
detect  His  retreating  into  the  mites  of  the  world.  He 
must  be  in  the  soul,  in  His  own  self-evidence  ;  present  to 
faith,  embraced  by  love.  Or,  if  we  speak  of  Christ  more 
especially,  or  his  work,  here  again,  he  that  believeth  hath 
the  witness  in  himself — only  he.  We  must  be  crucified 
with  him,  rise  with  him,  abide  in  his  peace,  feed  upon 
him  as  our  bread,  or  else  we  know  him  not.  All  these 


.332 


THE  CHRISTIAN 


\\ 


high  matters  belong  to  the  life,  and  it  is  the  puie  heart 
only,  the  simple,  believing,  divinely  illuminated  heart, 
that  can  ever  know  them.  Spiritual  things  must  be 
spiritually  discerned.  We  can  know  the  things  that  are 
freely  given  to  us  of  God,  only  as  Paul  knew  them-  — 
by  the  Spirit  that  is  of  God.  Therefore  it  is  not  in 
lectures  or  in  books,  not  in  exegetic  or  dogmatic  disci¬ 
pline,  not  in  any  and  all  other  methods,  so  truly  as  in  the 
elevations  of  prayer,  and  the  inbreathings  or  inspirations 
of  God,  that  a  human  soul  may  be  truly  initiated  into 
the  life  and  doctrine  of  Christ.  Theology,  so  called,  can 
really  import  into  the  soul  none  of  the  things  of  Christ, 
or  anything  more  than  simply  the  shadows  and  images 
of  them. 

Instead,  therefore,  of  spending  the  time,  or  so  great  a 
part  of  it,  in  collecting  knowledges,  trying  opinions,  and 
storing  the  mind  with  cognitions  and  judgments,  it  would 
often  be  far  better,  as  a  mere  point  of  economy,  to 
occupy  many  hours  in  contesting  with  the  sins  that 
make  a  Saviour  necessary,  and  in  those  sublime  realiza¬ 
tions  of  his  power,  which  reveal  him  as  the  inner  light 
and  peace  of  the  soul.  Nay,  it  were  better,  if  necessary 
to  forego  all  instruction,  shut  up  the  libraries,  give  the 
weeks  to  prayer,  shave  the  crown,  put  on  hair  girdles, 
ordain  a  year  of  silence — better,  I  would  say,  to  practice 
any  severity,  rather  than  to  attempt  the  knowledge  of 
God  by  the  mere  natural  understanding.  Or  if  it  be 
wise  in  teaching  the  military  art  to  spend  a  full  three 
months  each  year  in  the  encampment,  or  service  of  the 
field,  would  it  be  wider  of  reason,  in  the  training  of  a 


MINISTRY. 


333 


Christian  ministry,  to  spend  as  long  a  time,  each  year,  in 
the  holy  drill  of  charity,  patience,  and  devotion  ? 

Inspirations  are  wanted  to  prepare  tl  e  Christian 
preacher,  as  truly  as  the  gymnastics  of  study.  And  is 
there  nothing  here  to  be  learned  from  the  schools  of  the 
prophets  ?  In  these  we  see  the  youthful  candidates  for 
prophecy  led  into  retirement ;  practiced  there  in  songs, 
processions,  and  impassioned  acts  of  devotion  ;  exercised 
in  symbols  and  the  senses  of  mystic  forms  ;  kindled  by 
the  lofty  improvisings  of  the  seers  and  prophet  fathers — - 
all  that  they,  too,  may  be  brought  into  the  free  intuition 
of  God,  and  become  seers  themselves.  They  had  no 
dogmatics.  The  plan  was  simply  to  bring  them  up  out 
of  nature  into  the  “  Spirit  of  the  Lord,”  and  open,  within 
their  souls,  original  sources  of  knowledge ;  immediate  and 
free  visions  of  light.  True,  the  Christian  minister,  who 
is  the  prophet  of  Christianity,  has  books  to  receive  and 
interpret,  secondary  knowledges  to  study  and  digest,  but 
he  can  never  take  the  senses  of  these  holy  documents, 
till  the  inner  light  of  the  seer,  that  is,  of  true  insight,  is 
kindled  in  him — on  which  account  he  needs  to  be  trained 
in  a  holy  element,  and  be  led  along  as  a  pupil  of  the 
Spirit,  into  that  deep  knowledge  of  the  secrets  of  God, 
that  pure  and  hallowed  union  of  spirit  with  Jesus  himself, 
which  is  the  fountain  of  all  Christian  light. 

Another  and  second  suggestion,  which  I  proposed  to 
offer,  is  that  we  need  to  distinguish  more  accurately  than 
is  generally  done,  between  the  idea  of  a  Christian  minister 
and  that  of  a  Christian  preacher.  A  preacher  is  a  public 
speaker,  and  a  public  speaker  in  the  pulpit  is  estimated 
•n  much  the  same  way  as  a  speaker  a*  the  bar.  Has  he 


334 


THE  CHRISTIAN 


a  well-trained  understanding,  a  good  rhetoric,  a  well 
toned,  flexible  voice,  a  capacity  of  fire  and  a  graceful 
action  ? — these  are  the  questions  raised.  And  it  seems 
to  be  supposed  that  a  man  will  carry  effect,  and  be  a 
powerful  minister  of  the  New  Testament,  just  in  propor¬ 
tion  to  the  degree  of  his  personal  talents  and  accomplish¬ 
ments,  when  judged  in  this  manner.  Contrary  to  this, 
how  often  do  we  see  that  a  very  ordinary  preacher,  as 
regards  what  men  call  eloquence,  is  yet  a  great  and 
powerful  minister  of  God.  I  cannot  tell  how  it  is,  but  a 
few  plain  words,  spoken  out  of  a  present  living  faith  and 
union  to  God,  gently  spoken,  mere  child’s  words  in  the 
form,  equally  distant  from  ambition  on  one  side,  and 
cant  on  the  other — these  will  have  more  of  true  powei 
to  awaken  thoughts  of  God  and  stir  up  desires  after  Him, 
than  the  most  eloquent  harangues.  Here  is  a  something 
which  no  drill  in  rhetoric  can  teach,  no  talent  execute. 
Paul  tells  how  it  is  done,  when  he  sets  forth  his  concep¬ 
tion  of  the  Christian  teacher,  as  a  minister  of  God : — 
“  Whereof  I  am  made  a  minister,”  [how  ?  by  his  skill  in 
exegesis,  his  power  in  dogmatic  theology,  his  rhetoric, 
his  fine  speaking,  his  human  eloquence?  no,  but]  “  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  dispensation  which  is  given  to  me  for  you.” 
Again,  we  have  terms  yet  more  precise  and  significant : 
“  Whereof  I  was  made  a  minister,  according  to  the 
gift  of  the  grace  of  God  given  unto  me,  by  the  effectual 
working  of  his  power.”  Again — “  Whereunto  I  also 
labor,  striving  according  to  his  working  that  worketh  in 
me  mightily.”  And  again — “  But  I  labored  more  abun¬ 
dantly  than  they  all — yet  not  I,  but  the  grace  of  God 
which  was  with  me.”  I  believe  it  is  common  to  resolve 


MINISTRY. 


335 


these  striking  declarations  into  a  mere  assertion  of 
spiritual  aid  or  co-operation.  I  do  not  so  understand 
them.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  their  precise  design  to 
represent  that  the  man,  in  his  human  person,  is  to  be  the 
c  rgan  or  vehicle  of  God  ;  thus  to  have  his  power,  not 
under  the  laws  of  mere  natural  effect,  but  as  an  expres¬ 
sion  of  God’s  own  Spirit.  He  is  to  be  luminous  by  the 
suffusion  of  a  divine  light,  thus  a  minister  of  God.  The 
treasure  is  not  to  be  the  earthly  vessel  itself,  but  in  the 
earthly  vessel.  The  man  is  to  be  so  united  to  God,  so 
occupied  and  possessed  by  the  Eternal  Life,  that  his  acts 
and  words  shall  be  outgoings  of  a  divine  power.  And 
exactly  this  Paul  himself  declares,  when  he  says — “And 
my  speech  and  my  preaching  was  not  with  persuasive 
words  of  man’s  wisdom,  but  in  demonstration  [a tfoSsigei^ 
of  the  spirit  and  of  power.”  And  this  is  the  proper,  the 
truly  sublime  conception  of  the  minister  of  God.  He  is 
not  a  mere  preacher  occupying  some  pulpit,  as  a  stand  of 
natural  eloquence  ;  but  he  is  a  man  whose  nature  is 
possessed  of  God  in  such  a  manner  that  the  light  of  God 
is  seen  upon  him ;  a  man  whose  life  and  words  are 
apodictic — a  demonstration  of  the  Spirit. 

To  make  us  ministers  of  God,  in  this  high  and  truly 
Christian  sense,  is  the  object  of  all  theological  training. 
It  is  to  be  a  spiritual  cultus  in  the  things  of  Christ, 
wherein  we  are  to  learn  the  life  of  faith,  the  meekness 
and  patience  of  Jesus,  die  unto  ourselves,  drink  the 
spirit  of  Christ’s  passion,  become  pure  as  he  is  pure, 
learn  to  walk  as  he  also  walked,  and  receive  the  unction 
of  tie  Holy  One.  In  a  word,  we  are  to  acquire  that 
knowledge  of  Christ  which  is  immediate,  and  which  only 


336 


PLATFORMS 


the  Father  and  the  Son,  manifested  in  us,  can  impart; 
the  only  true  and  really  vital  knowledge.  And  then  we 
are  to  go  forth  and  testify  of  him  as  they  that  have  beer 
with  him,  to  be  a  demonstration  of  him  and  his  spirit. 

O,  if  we  had  such  a  ministry,  if  we  who  now  are  serv¬ 
ing  in  this  gospel,  and  all  who  are  to  join  us,  ceasing  to  be 
system-makers  and  preachers  and  place  holders,  and 
becoming  ministers  of  God,  were  to  go  forth  thus,  and 
prove  our  fellowship  with  God  and  his  Son,  how  soon 
would  that  great  reviving  of  which  I  have  spoken  begin 
to  appear.  Doctrine  would  no  more  be  the  same  as 
dogma.  We  should  not  preach  a  catechism,  but  a 
gospel.  Dialectic  quarrels  would  subside,  or  be  drowned, 
rather,  in  the  freedom  of  spirit  and  life.  Panics  raised 
over  misspelt  syllables,  excommunications  dealt  upon  those 
who  venture  on  some  disagreement  with  the  church,  in 
matters  that  belong  only  to  the  natural  understanding, 
would  be  heard  of  no  more.  Then  it  will  be  something 
to  love  God,  to  walk  in  the  Spirit,  and  bear  the  fruits  of 
righteousness.  And,  as  the  scandals  of  past  ages  are 
wiped  away,  the  word  will  run  swiftly  again,  as  in  the 
days  of  the  apostles,  and  be  fulfilled  with  power. 

4.  There  needs  to  be  a  revision  of  our  current  impres¬ 
sions,  in  reference  to  the  value  of  doctrinal  platforms  and 
articles  of  scientific  divinity,  taken  as  bonds  of  unity  and 
defences  of  purity.  Christ  and  his  apostles  manifestly 
had  no  such  conception  of  unity,  as  that  any  external 
ligament  of  opinion  or  science  may  compass  it  and  fasten 
it.  Christian  unity,  in  their  view,  is  not  a  fascicle,  but  a 
tree,  vitalized  by  a  common  life — “  I  in  them  and  thou 
in  me,  that  they  may  be  made  perfect  in  one.”  It  is 


and  articles. 


337 


“  holding  the  head,”  and,  under  it,  being  “  fitly  joined 
together.”  It  is  moral,  not  logical ;  of  the  heart,  not  of 
the  head.  It  is  precisely  what  an  apostle  means  when 
he  speaks  of  “  the  unity  of  the  Spirit ;”  under  which 
there  is,  of  course,  one  body  or  embodiment  as  there  is 
“  one  Spirit,” — “  one  Lord”  above,  “  one  faith”  in  the 
heart  to  embrace  him,  “  one  baptism”  as  the  outward 
profession  of  that  faith,  and  then,  as  the  soul,  the  internal, 
vivifying  principle  of  all,  “  one  God  and  Father  of  all, 
who  is  above  all,  and  through  all,  and  in  all.”  Discard¬ 
ing  this  magnificent  view  of  internal  brotherhood  in  the 
life,  dogma  early  undertook  to  build  an  external,  scientific 
unity  ;  and  then  exactly  that  followed  which  only  could 
follow,  viz.,  that,  as  the  heads  which  propagate  dogma 
are  many,  not  one,  so  the  church,  ceasing  to  be  one, 
became,  externally  viewed,  as  many  as  the  heads.  Man¬ 
ifestly  no  human  opinion  could  have  scope  and  force  to 
unify  all  thought  or  belief  under  it,  and  the  more  strin¬ 
gently  it  insists  on  containing  the  world  in  its  human 
measures,  the  more  certain  is  it  that  dissent,  disruption, 
and  all  manner  of  discord  will  follow.  So  it  has  been,  so 
it  ever  will  be.  These  attempts  to  settle  the  world  into 
unity  under  the  external  bonds  of  opinion,  continually 
defeated,  have  been  continually  insisted  on,  and  so  the 
divisions  and  subdivisions  have  been  constantly  growing 
finer,  till  now,  at  last,  the  imposture  is  discovered — the 
articles  of  opinion  that  were  to  be  the  bonds  and  bases  of 
a  unity  externally  constructed,  in  place  of  the  vital  unity 
of  the  Spirit,  have  fretted  away,  at  last,  even  the  appear¬ 
ance  of  unity. 

Nothing  is  plainer,  whether  as  a  matter  of  theory,  or 
29 


338 


PI.  ATFORMS 


of  fact  than  that  dogmatism  is  and  should  be  the  most 
fruitful  of  all  causes  of  division.  If  faith  has  to  do  with 
the  infinite,  if  life  is  the  presence  in  the  soul  of  the  infi¬ 
nite,  how  clear  is  it  that  opinions  can  compass  no  such 
matter.  And  then  how  evident  is  the  reason  why 
opinions  divide,  and  sects  arise,  and  wars  rage.  0,  this 
wretched  babble  of  opinions,  this  mutual  barricading  ot 
opinions,  by  which  Christian  souls  are  fenced  away  from 
each  other,  and,  if  possible,  from  the  Life  of  God  ! — as  if 
the  known,  acknowledged  fact,  that  God  is  manifested  in 
the  world,  and  wants  the  world’s  love,  were  nothing ;  to 
receive  it,  nothing ;  to  meet  in  receiving  it,  no  unity ! 
Therefore,  we  must  bring  this  astounding,  untheorizable 
fact  into  theory,  install  it,  in  consequence,  under  the  name 
of  some  school,  or  in  some  article  of  theology,  and  then, 
to  unite  in  it,  we  fancy,  makes  a  brotherhood.  And 
thus  we  go  on  to  talk,  debate,  measure  and  judge  one 
another,  and  quarrel  religion,  from  age  to  age,  without  so 
much,  it  may  be,  as  one  spiritual  apprehension  of  God  or 
of  Christ  as  the  life  of  the  world !  Opinions,  deductions 
of  mere  logic,  dogmas  impotent  and  dry,  discussed, 
debated,  stood  for  by  some,  rejected  by  others,  yielding 
to  none  the  true  food  of  life — these,  with  such  intermix¬ 
tures  of  strife  and  fire  as  are  naturally  to  be  expected, 
constitute  the  history  of  religion. 

The  manner  in  which  dogmatism  necessitates  division 
may  be  well  enough  illustrated  by  the  mournful  separa¬ 
tion  which  has  taken  place  in  the  New  England  churches. 
Had  we  been  embodied  in  the  simple  love  of  God  under 
some  such  badge,  for  example,  as  the  Apostles’  Creed,  it 
is  very  probable  to  me  that  the  causes  of  the  division 


AND  ARTICLES. 


339 


would  never  have  existed.  But  we  had  an  article  which 
asserted  a  metaphysical  trinity,  and  this  made  the  asser¬ 
tion  of  a  metaphysical  unity  inevitable  ;  nay,  more,  even 
desirable.  So  we  had  a  theory  of  atonement,  another  of 
depravity,  another  of  regeneration,  or  the  ingeneration  of 
character,  which  required  the  appearance,  so  to  speak,  of 
antagonistic  theories.  Our  theologic  culture,  meantime, 
was  so  limited,  on  one  side,  that  we  took  what  was  really 
our  own  opinion  only,  to  be  the  unalterable  truth  of  God  ; 
on  the  other,  the  side  of  the  revolt,  too  limited  to  perceive 
the  insufficiency  of  dogma  as  a  fruit  of  the  mere  under¬ 
standing,  too  limited  not  to  take  the  opposite,  with  the 
same  seriousness  and  totality  of  conviction.  On  this  side 
they  assumed  the  sufficiency  of  opinions  and  of  specula¬ 
tive  comprehension,  in  a  more  unrestrained  sense  than 
had  been  done  before.  They  even  fell  to  the  work  of  con¬ 
structing  a  religion  wholly  within  the  molds  of  natural 
reason  itself,  admitting  nothing  transcendent  in  the  reach 
of  faith,  or  the  manifestation  of  the  Life  of  God.  They 
asserted  liberty,  as  they  must  to  vindicate  their  revolt, 
producing,  however,  meantime,  the  most  intensely  human, 
and  in  that  sense,  the  most  intensely  opinionative 
religion  ever  invented,  under  the  name  of  Christianity. 

Have  they  no  reason,  together  with  us,  to  take  up  now, 
at  last,  some  suspicion  of  the  insufficiency  of  dogma 
and  of  all  mere  speculati  Te  opinions  formed  within  the 
life  of  nature  ?  May  we  not  all  begin  to  see  that  the 
ministration  of  life  is  somewhat  broader,  deeper,  more 
sufficient,  more  divine  ?  And  what  if  we  all,  feeling  our 
deep  want,  and  sorrowing  over  the  shame  our  human 
wisdom  has  cost  us,  should  come  back  together  to  the 


MO 


PLATFORMS 


simple  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  one  God,  there  to 
enter  into  peace  through  the  blood  of  Jesus,  and  there  to 
abide  in  the  fullness  of  love  and  brotherhood.  Or  if  we 
should  kneel  down  together  before  Him  and  say — “  I 
believe  in  God  the  Father  Almighty,  Maker  of  heaven 
and  earth,”  and  go  on  thus,  to — “  the  life  everlasting,” 
what  invisible  minister  of  God,  hanging  as  a  listener 
about  us,  would  not  join  us,  at  the  close,  and  say 
“  Amen.” 

Perhaps  it  may  be  too  soon  to  look  for  any  so  beauti¬ 
ful  result  as  this.  But  it  is  not  too  soon  for  us  to  be 
setting  the  human  in  the  place  of  the  human,  the  divine 
in  the  place  of  the  divine  ;  to  be  drawing,  all,  towards 
simplicity  ;  to  pray  more,  and  expect  more  light  to  come 
of  the  Life ;  to  be  more  in  love,  and  less  in  opinion ; 
oftener  to  bless,  and  as  much  less  often  to  judge. 

One  limit,  I  rejoice  to  believe,  is  already  reached,  as 
regards  this  process  of  division,  and  a  consequent  reaction 
may,  accordingly,  be  hoped  for.  No  longer  is  it  possible 
for  any  man  to  think  it  a  matter  of  ambition  to  become 
the  founder  of  a  sect.  For  this  business  of  sect-making 
is  already  quite  overdone,  and  the  products  turned  out, 
in  later  times,  are  so  indifferently  small,  because  of  the 
number,  that  when  the  busy  leader  gets  his  name  stuck 
upon  a  small  platoon  of  adherents,  it  seems  to  be  a  judg¬ 
ment  of  God  upon  him  thus  to  expose  him  to  ridicule. 
Henceforth  the  once  powerful  motives  of  ambition  are 
taken  away  from  the  activities  of  dogmatism,  and  now 
there  is  nothing  left  us,  in  fact,  but  to  strive  after  the 
Head  ;  to  draw  the  bleeding  members,  if  we  may,  ol 
Christ’s  lacerated  body  together,  and  have  it  for  our 


AND  ARTICLES. 


341 


most  blessed  and  pure  reward,  to  see  them  coa  esce  and 
live. 

And  to  hasten  such  a  result,  we  must  disallow,  as  un¬ 
christian,  all  human  schools  and  names  of  men.  The 
time  was  when  it  was  a  somewhat  brave  demonstration 
for  a  man  to  declare  that  he  was  not  a  Calvinist,  or  not 
the  disciple  of  some  other  human  name.  Possibly  there 
are  men  who  would  think  it  a  little  heroic  to  do  so  now. 
But  the  day  is  at  hand,  I  trust,  when  men  will  want 
their  courage  on  the  other  side ;  when  their  conscience 
will  forbid,  and  they  themselves  will  not  dare  to  be  called 
by  any  other  name  than  the  name  of  God  and  of  his 
Christ ;  when  that  pungent,  cutting  question  of  the  word, 
“  Is  Christ  divided  ?”  or  that  other,  “  Who  is  Paul, 
and  who  is  Apollos  ?”  will  be  something  more  than  a  turn 
of  rhetoric.  The  sin,  the  idolatry  of  man,  that  suffers 
any  name  but  the  blessed  name  of  the  Crucified,  will  be 
felt,  forsaken,  and,  I  hope,  forever  displaced  from  the 
world. 

Do  I  then  propose,  it  may  be  asked,  to  make  nothing 
of  opinions,  to  abolish  all  our  platforms  and  articles,  and 
embrace  every  person  who  pretends  to  be  a  disciple  ? 
Far  from  this.  The  recent  experience  of  the  Unitarians 
themselves  may  yield  us  a  lesson  of  caution  here.  I  pro¬ 
pose  no  violent  or  abrupt  change  whatever.  That  our 
jilal  forms  and  church  Articles  are  generally  too  minute 
and  theoretical,  I  certainly  believe  ;  but  we  must  feel 
our  way  in  the  preparing  of  changes.  It  will  suffice  to 
relax,  in  a  gradual  manner,  the  exact  and  literal  interpre¬ 
tation  of  our  standards  ;  to  lean  more  and  more,  as  we 

have  been  doing  for  the  fifty  years  past,  towards  the  sidt 
29* 


342 


PLATFORMS 


of  accommodation,  or  easy  construction.  This,  too  in 
the  hope,  which  we  may  lawfully  cherish,  that  it  will,  at 
last,  be  found  amply  sufficient  as  a  term  of  fellowship,  to 
unite  in  formulas  far  more  simple  and  untheoretic,  than 
any  which  we  have  at  present. 

I  will  go  farther ;  I  will  venture  to  suggest  the  doubt, 
whether  a  state  of  spiritual  elevation,  light,  sobriety,  and 
freedom  from  passion,  may  not  finally  be  reached,  in 
which  the  “unity  of  the  Spirit”  will  suffice,  without 
any  human  formulas,  to  preserve  the  purity  of  the  church. 
Manifestly  we  preserve  no  true  semblance  of  purity  now, 
by  our  formal  standards  ;  for  the  worst  kind  of  impurity 
is  practical,  not  theoretic,  the  impurity  of  a  selfish,  un¬ 
spiritual,  undevout  life ;  and  this  will  shelter  itself  as 
quietly  under  the  platforms  of  orthodoxy,  as  if  it  were 
even  acceptable  to  God.  How  often,  indeed,  is  it  the 
shame  of  religion,  that  a  confessedly  true  disciple  is 
hunted  out  of  the  church,  for  some  gentle  aberration  of 
opinion,  when  many  are  endured  in  it,  who  neglect  every 
duty,  and  are  known  to  live  in  a  manner  that  disavows 
every  spiritual  relation,  whether  to  God  or  man, — simply 
because  there  are  so  many  persons  assuming  to  be 
pillars  in  the  churches,  who  make  a  religion  of  orthodoxy, 
and  find  it  so  much  easier  to  be  exceedingly  mad  for  this, 
than  to  be  humble,  gentle,  and  patient  for  Christ’s  sake. 

Is  it  not  possible,  under  the  double  action  of  a  twofold 
process,  named  by  the  Apostle  John,  to  have  a  pure 
church  kept  in  preservation  by  mere  spiritual  affinities  ? 
First,  in  virtue  of  the  fact  that  those  who  are  not  of  the 
church,  will  go  out  from  it  themselves,  because  they  are 
not  of  it  ?  And,  secondly,  by  the  intuitive  discerning  of 


AND  ARTICLES. 


343 


spirits,  enabling  those  who  are  truly  in  the  Spirit,  anc 
who,  according  to  another  apostle,  “judge  all  things,”  to 
perceive  the  spirit  of  other  minds  ?  It  certainly  was  not 
the  design  of  John  to  affirm  that  every  one  is  of  God 
who  “  confesseth  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh,” 
regarding  him  simply  as  receiving  this  mere  formula. 
He  gives  the  test  as  practical,  and  relating  to  the  existing 
state  of  things.  He  goes  on,  accordingly,  occupying  the 
whole  chapter  that  follows,  as  I  understand  him,  with  an 
exposition  of  the  signs  by  which  a  true  heir  of  God  may 
be  distinguished.  Much  ridicule  has  been  heaped,  in 
modern  times,  on  human  attempts  to  judge  spiritual  char¬ 
acter.  But  however  presumptuous,  in  one  view,  it  may 
be,  a  far  better  and  truer  judgment,  I  am  confident,  may 
be  formed  of  character  than  of  opinions.  We  do,  in  fact, 
judge  character  more  truly  than  we  do  opinions.  It  is 
more  palpable.  We  are  accustomed  to  read  character. 
We  do  it  almost  unconsciously,  and  by  an  affinity  deeper 
than  we  understand  ourselves.  It  only  requires  a  truly 
simple,  unprejudiced  heart ;  and,  having  that  to  offer  to 
any  character,  it  is  drawn  or  repelled  as  by  a  certain 
divine  polarity  in  us.  Should  that  true  reviving  of  the 
religious  spirit,  of  which  I  have  spoken,  come  to  pass,  and 
a  heart  spiritually  enlightened  and  purified  be  found  in 
the  Christian  body  generally,  may  it  not  then  be  found 
also  that  the  Life  of  God,  in  the  Christian  brotherhood, 
will  sufficiently  separate  them  from  the  unbelieving  and 
unspiritual  by  its  own  transcendent  affinities  ?  Again — • 
5.  I  must  call  your  attention  more  directly  to  the 
mournful  effects  of  dogma,  as  a  limitation  upon  piety 


.144 


PIETY  ITSELF 


itself.  It  is  so  much  easier  to  think  than  to  slay  our  sins 
to  judge  others  than  to  live  to  God  ourselves,  to  be  ortho¬ 
dox  than  to  be  holy,  that  we  are  very  prone  to  set  one 
kind  of  activity  in  place  of  the  other,  and  please  our¬ 
selves  in  the  pious  and  respectable  look  of  it.  If,  too,  we 
once  pass  into  dogma  and  become  active  in  it,  we  begin, 
at  once,  to  over-value  it,  mixing  our  pride  with  it,  adding 
to  our  pride  our  will,  to  this  our  passions,  and  to  these 
our  prayers,  till,  finally,  we  become  at  once  thoroughly 
religious  in  our  way,  and,  at  the  same  time,  thoroughly 
abominable  and  wicked  in  our  spirit.  This  class  of 
characters  are  about  the  worst  and  most  mischievous 
that  are  ever  to  be  found  in  the  church. 

I  know  of  no  illustration  of  the  effect  of  dogmatism, 
taken  as  a  limit  upon  piety,  which  needs  to  be  pursued, 
at  this  time,  with  more  attention  than  that  which  is  fur¬ 
nished  by  the  theory,  extensively  held,  of  Christ’s  work. 
He  is  regarded  not  as  a  power,  in  the  manner  of  the 
New  Testament,  but  more  as  a  paymaster;  not  as 
coming  to  bring  us  life,  and  take  us  to  his  bosom,  but  in 
literal  dogmatic  verity,  to  suffer  God’s  displeasure  in  our 
stead,  and  so  to  reconcile  God  to  us.  Taken  as  he 
stands,  theologically  represented,  there  is  nothing  given 
to  us  of  Christ,  which  is  closer  to  feeling,  often,  than 
that  he  fills  out  a  judicial  machinery,  and  is  good  as  a 
legal  tender  for  our  sins.  Diminished  thus,  by  dogma, 
Christ  ceases  to  be  the  Life.  We  only  look  to  see  how 
he  brings  us  by  the  law.  He  is  a  mere  forensic  entity. 
Then  follows  what  only  could  ; — a  doctrine  of  justification 
by  faith,  is  held  by  many  so  literal  and  forensic  in  its 
form,  that  the  gospel  of  heaven’s  love  and  light  is  nar 


LIMITED  BY  DOGMA. 


345 


rowed  almost  to  a  superstition.  They  scarcely  dare 
entertain  the  thought  of  a  personal  righteousness,  or  to 
look  upon  any  such  hope  as  permissible.  It  implies,  they 
fear,  some  expectations  of  being  saved,  not  wholly  fry 
the  merits  of  Christ.  They  cannot  even  read  or  hear, 
without  a  little  jealousy  or  disturbance  of  mind,  those 
texts  of  scripture  that  speak  of  assurance,  liberty,  a 
conscience  void  of  offence,  victory  over  sin,  a  pure 
heart,  a  blameless  life,  and  a  perfected  love.  They  are 
so  jealous  of  merit  that  they  make  a  merit  of  not  having 
any.  They  are  so  resolved  on  magnifying  the  grace  of 
God,  as  almost  to  think  it  a  crime  to  believe  that  the  grace 
of  God  can  make  them  any  better.  They  come  before 
God  in  confessions  of  sin,  so  extravagant,  so  wide  of  their 
own  consciousness,  that  if  a  fellow  man  were  to  charge 
upon  them  what  they  confess,  they  would  be  mortally 
offended.  And  though  there  be  no  sincerity,  no  real 
verity  in  such  confessions,  they  think  it  altogether  safe  to 
include  enough,  because  it  strips  them  of  merit !  Mean¬ 
time  their  standards  are  let  down  to  the  lowest  point  of 
attainment ;  for  if  they  deem  it  an  essential  part  of  their 
piety  to  keep  up  their  confessions,  it  will  be  somewhat 
natural,  at  least,  to  live  in  a  manner  to  do  them  some 
tolerable  degree  of  justice.  And,  if  an  air  of  falsity  or 
affectation  is  thus  thrown  over  their  piety,  what,  mean¬ 
time,  becomes  of  Jesus  the  Saviour — God  in  Christ 
reconciling  the  world  to  himself?  What  element  of  life 
and  divine  eloquence  is  left  ?  Where  is  Christ,  the  wis¬ 
dom  and  the  power  ? 

But  you  will  best  understand  the  stringent  power 
of  dogma  as  a  limit  upon  spiritual  character,  if  you 


346 


PIETY  'TSELf 


advert  to  the  common  fact,  everywhere  visible,  of  a 
dogmatic  piety.  What  a  picture  do  I  call  up  by 
these  two  words — ‘  dogmatic  piety’ !  It  rises  clear 
before  you,  and  your  heart  sickens  at  the  view  of 
t.  You  behold,  not  a  Calvinistic  confession,  but  a  Cai- 
vinistic  piety ;  rigid,  stern,  standing  for  the  letter,  inflex¬ 
ible  as  the  decrees  of  God — an  Episcopal  piety ;  mod¬ 
erate,  complaisant,  unaccommodating  only  in  that  which 
human  opinion  and  custom  have  sanctified — a  Presbyte¬ 
rian  piety,  a  Quaker,  a  Methodist,  all  wearing  a  stamp 
from  their  human  origin  and  polity  so  distinct  that  you 
could  tell  the  religious  communion  of  a  stranger,  under 
any  one  of  these  names,  by  a  half  hour’s  presence  with 
him.  You  would  see  his  dogma  pricking  through  his 
skin,  setting  his  postures,  turning  the  angle  of  his  mo¬ 
tions,  or  tattooing  itself  in  his  face.  What  sight  more 
sad  than  to  behold  these  poor,  unsuspecting  disciples 
labeled  off  in  this  fantastic  fashion,  and  standing  up  before 
both  God  and  man,  as  illustrations  of  the  extent  to  which 
mere  human  notions  and  conceits  of  the  human  under¬ 
standing  may  limit  the  freedom  of  grace,  and  distort 
the  beauty  even  of  spiritual  life. 

I  cannot  pursue  this  topic  further,  save  to  suggest  one 
simple  remedy  that  seems  to  be  provided,  in  a  certain 
degree,  out  of  the  mischief  itself,  viz.,  that  in  every  school 
and  sect,  the  disciples  give  themselves  to  an  attentive 
study  of  the  best  and  most  deeply  devotional  Christiar 
writers  in  different  ages,  and  under  forms  of  worship  and 
opinion  most  remote  from  their  own.  Let  them  read  for 
instruction,  not  for  criticism.  Here  they  will  see  the 
Life  struggling  out  through  other  forms  of  dogma,  and 


limited  by  dogma. 


34*3 


while  these  other  forms  are  meeting,  and,  perhaps, 
neutralizing  their  own,  the  image  of  Christ  will  shine  out 
more  clear  and  simple  than  they  ever  saw  it  before. 
They  will  see  him  as  he  lives  in  all  his  followers,  and 
loving  them  with  a  new  spirit  of  catholicity,  will  worship 
him  with  a  new  sense  of  oneness  with  him  and  his  re¬ 
deemed.  And  I  anticipate  no  danger  in  this  free  com¬ 
muning  with  the  devotional  spirit  of  the  disciples  of  oui 
Lord,  under  other  and  repugnant  forms  of  opinion.  To  be¬ 
hold  the  inner  light  with  a  Fox  and  a  Gurnall,  and  with 
them  to  be  in  the  Spirit ;  to  look  into  that  deep  well  ol 
spiritual  thought,  which  God  has  uncovered  in  the  sainted 
pages  of  Tersteegen  ;  to  steal  into  the  cell  of  the  old  monk 
Thomas  a  Kempis,  and  weep  with  him ;  to  follow  to  his  exile 
the  great  archbishop  of  Cambray,  that  most  luminous  and 
loveliest  of  teachers,  that  most  beautiful,  most  Christ-like, 
and,  to  human  judgment,  purest  of  all  living  characters 
since  the  days  of  the  apostles — O,  if  this  be  dangerous, 
likely  to  unsettle  our  opinions,  or  dissolve  our  formulas, 
still  may  God  grant  that  the  effects  of  such  kind  of 
license  may  appear  as  soon  as  possible,  and  in  the 
largest  possible  measure. 

I  would  even  go  so  far  as  to  recommend,  especially  to 
Christian  ministers  and  students  of  theology  in  New 
England,  that  they  make  a  study,  to  some  extent,  of  the 
mystic  and  quietistic  writers  ;  inquiring,  at  the  same 
time,  how  far  Christ  and  Christianity  partake  in  these 
elements — also,  whether  it  be  not  a  fault  of  our  own 
piety  and  character,  that  it  partakes  of  neither?  We 
have  no  reason,  at  present,  to  cherish  any  fears  of  mysti¬ 
cism.  It  can  do  us  no  harm  until  we  are  much  farther 


348 


THE  HOLY  SPIRIT 


off  from  the  busy,  speculative,  dry,  and  almost  total  rule  of 
dogma  than  we  ever  yet  have  been,  or  than  it  is,  at 
present,  in  our  nature  to  be.  And  as  to  quietism,  it  will 
be  soon  enough  to  apprehend  ill  consequences  from  hat 
in  New  England,  when  the  bees  are  found  sleeping  in 
summer  shades,  or  the  lightnings  stagnate  in  the  sky. 
In  fact,  there  is  nothing  but  spiritual  life  itself  that  is  so 
much  wanted  in  our  American  piety,  as  a  larger  infusion 
of  the  quiet  spirit — to  be  less  in  commotion,  and  more  in 
God,  to  learn  the  grace  of  silence  and  of  secret  alms,  to 
acquaint  ourselves  with  God,  and  be  at  peace. 

6.  It  remains  to  be  suggested,  that  our  modern  piety 
appears  to  have  been  limited  and  partially  dwarfed, 
almost  universally,  by  the  admission  of  certain  opinions 
or  impressions  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  are  referable 
wholly  to  scientific  theology,  and  which  need  to  be  revised. 

It  has  been  remarked,  I  think  by  others,  and  truly 
nothing  is  more  remarkable,  than  that  individuals  and 
communities  are  often  deeply  moved,  as  in  revivals  of 
religion,  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  yet  that  the  sect-spirit 
is,  in  general,  rather  exasperated  than  softened.  There 
is  visibly  more  of  love,  and  yet  the  antagonisms  of  sect 
appear  to  be  more  active.  A  result,  manifestly,  which  is 
not  of  God,  but  rather  of  some  bad  limitations,  which 
are  really  hostile  to  the  proper  unity  of  the  Spirit  in  us. 
Nor  have  we  any  doubt  where  this  limitation  is  to  be 
sought.  Our  own  consciousness  tells  us  where  it  is  ;  for 
what  man  ever  finds  it  in  him  to  expect  that  the  Spirit  ot 
God  will  melt  down  a  platform,  or  dissolve  one  dogma  ? 
It  is  even  taken  for  granted,  that  he  will  let  alone  our 
opinions  and  disturb  no  articles  we  have  adopted  We 


AS  THE  SPIRIT  OP  CHRIST. 


349 


secretly,  though  doubtless  unconsciously,  impose  our 
dogma  as  a  limitation  of  the  Spirit. 

What  a  revelation,  then,  have  we  here !  Were  there 
no  other  cause  to  ‘differ  our  piety  from  that  of  the 
apostles,  this  would  suffice.  The  Pauline  character  can 
never  appear  again  till  we  are  so  disencumbered  of 
restrictions,  that  we  can  offer  our  whole  being  up  to  the 
pure  and  total  guidance  of  God.  This  is  the  first  con¬ 
dition  of  a  complete  Christian  life,  that  God  shall  have 
free  course  in  us.  We  cannot  wall  him  about  with  our 
wisdom,  and  then  require  of  him  to  finish  the  spirit  of 
Christ  in  us. 

The  reality  and  power  of  this  limitation  is  displayed  in 
other  methods.  In  how  many  minds  is  the  Spirit  viewed  or 
received,  through  their  speculative  theology,  not  as  main¬ 
taining  any  social,  moral,  endearing  relations  in  us,  but 
simply  as  an  abstract  and  dry  agency — mere  efficiency, 
running  out  from  God’s  decrees,  to  execute  them  in  us  by 
an  ictic  force ;  or,  at  best,  as  an  effluence  or  influence 
streaming  through  us,  which  does  not  shape  itself,  has 
no  social  consciousness,  but  only  works  in  the  way  of 
mere  causation,  like  a  stimulant  or  an  opiate.  This, 
manifestly,  is  not  the  Holy  Spirit  of  the  scriptures,  but 
the  Holy  Spirit,  rather,  of  the  schools.  And  the  differ¬ 
ence  is  the  more  remarkable,  that  our  dogma  even  goes 
beyond  the  scriptures  in  asserting  the  metaphysical  per¬ 
sonality  of  the  Spirit.  We  call  him  a  person,  insist  on 
his  personality,  raising,  at  the  same  time,  a  scheme  of 
dogma,  which  reduces  him  to  a  something  literally  pur¬ 
chased  for  us,  and  dispensed  as  a  gift  to  us  ;  or  to  a  mere 

causative  agency  that  works  in  us  without  feeling, 
30 


350 


THE  HOLY  SPIRIT, 


sociality,  character,  or  anything  which  properly  distim 
guishes  personality.  Hence,  there  is  scarcely  produced 
in  us  at  all,  the  sense  of  mutuality,  love,  or  inwardly 
abiding  friendship. 

In  the  scriptures,  on  the  other  hand,  he  is  even  repre¬ 
sented  as  being  the  spirit  of  Christ — nay,  Christ  himself. 
This  also  by  Christ  himself ;  for  he  says,  in  his  promise 
of  the  Comforter,  “  I  will  come  to  you,” — and  to  his 
apostles,  “  Lo  I  am  with  you  always.”  And  this  is 
said,  evidently,  that  we  may  conceive  the  Spirit  socially, 
as  being  in  some  proper  sense  Christ  himself,  with  us 
always,  in  all  the  feeling  of  Jesus — breathing  his  feeling 
as  love  and  life  into  every  fibre  of  our  inner  man.  The 
word  is  nigh  us,  even  in  our  mouth  and  heart.  The 
Christ  of  the  garden  and  the  cross  is  with  us,  suing  at 
our  heart,  and  striving  to  communicate  all  that  we  could 
hope  from  the  love  of  Gethsemane  and  Calvary  socially 
present  in  us.  If,  then,  we  can  give  up  our  soul  to  his 
occupancy,  and  let  him  abide  in  us,  according  to  his 
promise,  what  attainments,  what  elevation,  what  purity 
and  peace  of  spirit  may  we  not  believe  he  will  work 
in  us ! 

We  have  also  raised  a  theologic  distinction,  under  the 
word  inspiration ,  which,  it  is  very  clear  to  me,  is  opera¬ 
ting  a  sad  depression  in  our  modern  piety,  even  if  origi¬ 
nally  there  was  nothing  false  in  the  distinction  ;  for  we 
have  now  taken  it,  practical  y,  in  such  a  sense  as  cuts  us 
off  from  the  holy  men  of  scripture  times,  and  works  a 
feeling  in  us  that  God  is  now  more  remote,  and,  of  course, 
that  it  is  no  longer  permissible  to  realize  the  same  graces, 
and  expect  the  same  intense  union  of  the  life  with  God 


AS  TIIE  SPIRIT  OF  CHRIST. 


351 


Thus,  out  of  our  own  opinion  we  judge,  and  from  our 
pulpits  declare  that  there  is  no  inspiration  in  these  latter 
times.  It  was  confined,  we  say,  to  the  times  previous  to 
the  canon  of  scripture.  At  that  time  it  was  discontinued. 
True,  it  may  only  be  intended  that  prophetic  inspirations, 
or  the  inspirations  of  evangelists  and  apostles  was  discon¬ 
tinued,  and  yet,  by  thus  appropriating  the  word,  we  carry 
a  deeper  impression,  which  is  certainly  untrue  ;  for  all 
the  workings  of  the  Spirit  are  inspirations  as  truly  as 
these.  Christian  character  itself,  and  all  its  graces,  are 
forms  of  inspiration.  It  requires  an  inspiration,  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  second  chapter  of  the  first  epistle  to  the 
Corinthians,  to  understand  or  really  to  come  into  the 
truth  of  Christ  at  all.  Nay,  it  is  even  required  of  us 
that  we  shall,  as  disciples,  be  led  of  the  Spirit,  so  that  he 
shall  be  the  practical  guide  of  life  ;  which  is  nothing  less 
than  to  say  that  there  is  an  inspiration  for  everything 
right  in  life — as  there  was  for  the  good  goldsmith  Beza- 
leel,  when  “  filled  with  the  Spirit  of  God,  in  wisdom,  and 
in  understanding,”  “  to  devise  cunning  works,  to  work  in 
gold,  and  in  silver,  and  in  brass,  and  in  cutting  of  stones.” 
In  short,  the  true  idea  of  Christianity,  as  a  ministration 
of  the  Spirit,  is  that  the  disciple  shall  be  led  out  of  one 
moment  into  the  next,  through  all  his  life,  by  a  present 
union  to  God  and  a  constant  guidance — that  he  shall  be 
the  child  of  the  Spirit.  Thus,  whether  he  be  a  cultivator 
of  the  soil,  an  artisan,  a  teacher,  a  magistrate,  or  a  min¬ 
ister  of  God’s  truth,  he  shall  live,  not  in  himself,  but  in 
God,  and  have  just  that  kind  and  degree  of  inspiration  or 
guidance  which  his  calling  demands. 

Rectifying  thus,  and  enlarging  our  ideas  of  the  Spirit 


352 


CONCLUSION. 


and  his  relations  to  us,  how  clear  is  it  that  a  new  intimacy 
of  faith  and  love  will  be  visible  between  the  church  and 
God — that  the  old  incrustation,  or  dogmatic  shell  of  our 
piety  will  be  melted  away,  and  that,  ceasing  to  see  in  the 
sparks  of  our  own  kindling,  looking  to  God  in  the  whole 
course  of  life,  there  will  be  unfolded  a  style  of  piety 
wholly  unknown,  at  present,  in  the  world.  Then  the 
church  of  God  will  be  again,  what  an  apostle  said  it  was, 
the  inhabitation  of  Christ — his  body,  the  fullness  of  him 
that  filleth  all  in  all. 

There  are,  still,  many  things  waiting  to  be  said,  in 
connection  with  this  very  momentous  subject,  but  I 
must  draw  my  remarks  to  a  conclusion.  I  have  spoken 
of  dogma  as  a  limitation  upon  piety  ;  or,  rather,  even  as 
a  lapse  in  the  Christian  spirit  itself.  This  I  most  firmly 
believe  to  be  true,  and,  I  think,  I  have  given  you  suffi¬ 
cient  reason,  if  not  to  embrace,  at  least,  to  consider  with 
profound  deliberation,  the  view  I  have  stated.  If  I  am 
right,  nothing  is  wanted  now,  in  order  to  realize  a  grand 
renovation  of  the  religious  spirit  throughout  Christendom, 
more  glorious,  probably,  than  the  Reformation  itself,  but 
simply  to  recover  from  this  ancient  lapse  into  dogma — not 
to  uproot  opinions,  not  to  stop  the  intellectual  and  scien¬ 
tific  activity  of  the  church,  but  simply  to  invert  the 
relations  of  dogma  and  spirit,  so  as  to  subordinate  every¬ 
thing  in  the  nature  of  science  and  opinion  to  the  spirit, 
and  thus  to  elevate  everything  in  the  nature  of  science 
and  opinion  into  the  region  of  spirit  and  life. 

As  regards  revivals  of  religion,  it  is  not  any  purpose 
of  my  discourse  to  object  against  them.  I  only  have  a 


CONCLUSION. 


353 


conviction  that  God  is  calling  us  to  look  farther,  and 
comprehend  more.  To  do  so  is,  in  fact,  the  best  method 
of  preparing  revivals,  if  that  were  our  object — the  only 
method  in  which  it  can  be  done  effectually.  The  true 
doctrine  seems  to  be  that  we  are  to  labor,  not  for  a 
reviving  of  revivals,  but  for  a  reviving  of  the  real  life 
and  deepest  and  most  earnest  power  of  religion  itself. 
And  then,  if  it  please  God  to  bring  us  into  some  state 
that  we  may  call  by  the  ordinary  name  revival,  we  shall 
be  in  it  healthily,  in  it  as  being  in  religion,  permanently 
given  to  God,  and  not  as  in  some  casual  flame  that  is  got 
up,  in  part,  by  the  friction  of  human  effort  and  expecta¬ 
tion.  We  certainly  cannot  miss  of  revivals,  if  they  are 
wanted,  by  means  of  a  new  spirit  of  piety  from  God,  such 
as  we  have  never  before  realized.  If  we  are  after  the  most 
spiritual  habit,  the  most  complete  devotion,  the  deepest 
union  to  God,  the  fullest  liberty  and  the  most  established 
and  permanent  life  of  religion,  we  shall  not  miss,  I  am  con¬ 
fident,  of  any  casual  blessings  on  our  way.  What  do  we 
require,  in  fact,  but  that  every  disciple  shall  be  revived  for 
his  whole  life — that  he  shall  undertake,  not  for  a  scene, 
but  for  a  life  ;  that  he  shall  die  to  self,  come  into  the  true 
liberty  and  rest  of  faith,  achieve  his  victory,  live  the 
secret  life,  and  prove  the  fullness  and  sufficiency  of  Christ 
as  a  Saviour.  This  I  am  sure  will  be,  in  the  truest,  fullest 
sense,  a  reviving  of  religion  ;  only  it  cannot  come  up  in  a 
night,  in  some  social  meeting,  but  must  come  gradually, 
as  the  day  dawns.  It  will  require  patience,  holy  applica¬ 
tion,  and  a  capacity,  I  think,  to  bear  some  reproach  from 
disciples  who  cannot  enter  at  once  into  a  view  so  remote 

from  their  apprehensions,  or  opposite  to  their  prejudices. 

30* 


354 


CONCLUSION 


One  thing  is  clear,  that  the  highest  form  of  piety  can 
never  appear  on  earth  until  the  discip.es  of  Chiist  are 
able  to  be  in  the  Spirit,  in  some  broader  and  more  per¬ 
manent  sense  than  simply  to  suffer  those  local  and  casual 
fervors  that  may  be  kindled  within  the  walls  of  a  church, 
or  the  boundaries  of  a  village.  The  Spirit  of  God  is  a 
catholic  spirit,  and  there  needs  to  be  a  grand  catholic  re¬ 
viving,  a  universal  movement,  penetrating  gradually  and 
quickening  into  power  the  whole  church  of  Christ  on  earth. 
Then  and  then  only,  in  the  spiritual  momentum  of  such 
a  day,  when  the  Spirit  of  God  is  breathing  inspirations 
into  all  believing  souls,  and  working  graces  in  them  that 
are  measured,  no  longer  by  the  dogmas  of  sect,  but  by  the 
breadth  of  his  own  character — then,  I  say,  feeling  the 
contact,  every  man,  of  a  universal  fellowship,  and  rising 
with  the  flood  that  is  lifting  the  whole  church  into  free¬ 
dom  and  power,  it  will  be  seen  what  possible  heights  of 
attainment — hitherto  scarcely  imagined — what  spiritual 
completeness  and  fullness  of  life  the  gospel  and  grace  of 
Christ  are  able  to  effect,  in  our  sinful  race.  Partiality  of 
movement  involves  a  limitation  of  power.  By  this  cause 
Christianity  has  hitherto  been  dwarfed  in  all  its  results 
and  manifestations.  Nothing  better  can  ever  be  realized, 
till,  ascending  into  Christianity  as  spirit  and  life,  in  the 
fullest  and  freest  sense,  we  submit  our  souls  to  God’s  uni¬ 
versal  movement.  We  are  to  receive  the  Spirit  in  his 
own  measures,  not  any  more  in  ours,  and  prepare  our¬ 
selves,  gradually,  for  an  outspreading  era  of  life,  that  shall 
be  as  the  manifested  Life  of  God. 

It  is  also  to  be  noted,  that  we  are  the  only  people  who 
are  prepared  to  lead  in  so  great  a  work ;  for  the  manifest 


CONCLUSION. 


355 


reason  that,  in  evcsy  other  Protestant  nation,  dogma 
remains,  even  to  this  hour,  intermixed  with  and  supported 
by  civil  statutes.  From  these  we  have  made  our  escape, 
arid  now  it  remains  to  use  the  advantage  gained — to 
assume  the  work  Luther  left  incomplete,  and  go  forward 
to  re-inaugurate  that  ministration  of  the  Spirit  which 
Christ  ordained  for  the  world. 

If  any  apprehend  that,  in  such  a  movement  for  the 
reduction  of  dogma  as  I  have  proposed,  we  are  likely  to 
fall  into  confusion  and  run  loose  into  all  the  wild  ex¬ 
travagances  of  the  mystics,  let  them  observe  that  the 
apprehensions  they  suffer  are  excited  by  the  experience 
of  past  ages ;  which  experience  will  avail  to  make  other 
men  cautious,  as  it  does  to  make  them  apprehensive,  and 
will  thus  operate  as  a  check  io  extravagance ;  also,  that 
I  give  ample  room  for  a  strong  theological  activity,  raising 
a  demand  for  it  even  by  requiring  that  nothing  shall  be 
accepted  as  truth,  which  is  contrary  to  reason  or  true 
learning,  as  exercised  on  the  scripture ;  also,  that  I  pro¬ 
pose  no  abrupt  change — no  change  at  all,  in  fact,  but 
such  as  consists  in  being  more  simply  and  absolutely 
united  to  God. 

If  I  have  suggested  the  possibility  of  a  reunion  of  the 
separated  churches  of  New  England,  who  can  estimate* 
the  effects  that  would  follow  such  an  event,  the  influence 
t  would  exert  on  the  religious  well-being  of  the  nation, 
and  also  of  the  world  ?  If,  then,  we  surrender  to  our 
adversaries  no  truth,  if  we  simply  cast  out  repugnant 
forms  of  opinion  that  are  human,  and  disencumber  the 
words  of  spirit  of  those  loads  of  unwisdom  which  the 
past  ages  have  heaped  upon  the  truth,  should  we  not 


356 


CONCLUSION. 


for  Christ’s  sake  do  it  ?  And,  if  we  meet  them  in  the 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost — one  God ;  if  we  meet 
them  in  Gethsemane,  or  on  the  hill  of  Calvary,  there  to 
kneel  and  weep  away  our  sins  together — which  we  do,  or 
else  we  meet  them  nowhere — who  shall  suffer,  who  will 
be  offended  ?  Shall  we  not,  rather,  stand  ready  to  meet 
the  world  here  also  ?  And  what  if  we  all,  in  every 
name  and  kindred  and  family,  relaxing,  a  little,  the 
bondage  we  are  under  to  our  dogmas,  should  come  up 
into  spirit  and  life  as  the  freemen  of  the  Lord,  and  begin 
to  claim  our  common  property  together  in  the  old  Apostles’ 
Creed.  Most  sure,  I  am,  that  no  spectacle  more  sublime, 
or  more  truly  pleasing  to  God,  will  ever  be  witnessed  on 
earth,  tl  an  if  taking  up  this  holy  confession,  sanctified 
by  the  faith  and  consecrated  by  the  uses  of  so  many 
ages,  all  the  disciples  of  Jesus  on  earth,  may  be  heard 
answering  in  it  together,  sect  to  sect,  and  people  to 
people,  and  rolling  it,  as  a  hymn  of  love  and  brotherhood, 
round  the  world  : — 

I  believe  in  God  the  Father  Almighty,  Maker  of 
neaven  and  earth  :  And  in  Jesus  Christ,  his  onlv  Son,  our 
Lord ;  Who  was  conceived  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  born  of 
the  Virgin  Mary,  suffered  under  Pontius  Pilate,  was 
crucified,  dead,  and  buried.  The  third  day  he  rose  from 
the  dead  ;  He  ascended  into  Heaven,  and  sitteth  on  the 
right  hand  of  God  the  Father  Almighty ;  From  thence 
he  shall  come  to  judge  the  quick  and  the  dead. 

I  believe  in  the  Holy  Ghost;  the  Holy  Catholic  Church; 
the  communion  of  Saints ;  the  forgiveness  of  sins  ;  the 
resurrection  of  the  body,  and  the  life  everlasting.  Amen. 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1 


012  01007  7982 


DATE  DUE 


jm  ioor 

JU #0* 

Demco,  Inc.  38-293 


